When the House adjourned last night, I was referring …

Where are the members of the Cabinet?

Our backbenchers are quite capable of dealing with this matter. [Interjections.]

Order!

When the House adjourned last night I was referring to certain questions which the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs put to the hon. member for Orange Grove as a result of which the Financial Mail put a series of questions to the United Party, questions that penetrate to the core of the United Party’s labour policy. For the purposes of the record I want to quote this series of questions in full, as follows—

May I ask you a question?

Mr. Speaker, no— because I am afraid that the hon. member’s question would be of the same calibre as his approach to our labour problem. The Financial Mail, of course, is not favourably disposed to this side of the House, and yet it is this journal which, at the end of this Parliamentary Session, has still not been able to get any reply to these questions from the United Party. Referring to the debate in which the hon. member for Orange Grove was involved, the Financial Mail continues by stating—

This comes from the Financial Mail of 14th August of this year. [Interjections.] Yesterday the hon. member for Orange Grove had a question on the Order Paper in connection with sauna baths. I have a suspicion that the question concerned the high temperature to which a person is exposed in a sauna bath. We also know that when one develops a high temperature one can sometimes avoid awkward questions. It therefore does not surprise me that the hon. member for Orange Grove’s interest lies in that direction.

The hon. member for Sea Point tried to raise a smoke screen in order to mislead us. But we shall now allow ourselves to be mislead. I should like to deal briefly with a few points he mentioned.

What about Klip River.

What about Odendaalsrus?

The hon. member over there wore out his shoe leather at Klip River, and now he is asking me about Odendaalsrus! He should rather tell us why he wore out his shoe leather. The hon. member for Sea Point thought fit to refer to quite a few matters. I want to ask him what he thinks of the legal men of our country.

A great deal.

What does he think of the Judges of our country?

A great deal.

Do you remember the number of questions you put to the Minister of Mines and Health?

I put no questions to him.

In the light of the high opinion the hon. member has of our judicature, I want to refer him to what the Prime Minister said on 14th September of this year in the House of Assembly (Hansard, column 4130)—

That is what the Prime Minister said.

I said so, did I not. [Interjections.]

The Prime Minister was wrongly informed; he was told an untruth.

Since the hon. member for Sea Point has suoh a high opinion of our legal men, I want to conclude this matter with this quote. [Interjections.] The hon. member also referred to the Senate and to South-West. He put me in mind of an English expression, an expression which, out of respect for this House, I want to furnish in its translated Afrikaans form: “Die onwyse snel dáárheen waar selfs engele huile nie sal begeef nie.” (Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.) And so saying I want to dismiss these two matters. [Interjections.] As far as the United Party is concerned, during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage of this Bill they had the opportunity of calling the National Government and its Ministers to account. They had opportunities throughout to ask questions, and their questions were dealt with courteously and answered properly. But now in the Third Reading we have an opportunity of looking at the United Party, and as the Official Opposition in this country I think the United Party should welcome this opportunity. It is the responsibility of the Opposition to come under the magnifying glass from time to time, because they aspire to take over the Government. It is only fair to the voters that they should eagerly seize every opportunity to undergo that test. There are a number of conditions I want to put to the Opposition before they can act as an aspiring alternative Government. I say only aspire to rule, because up to now their achievements have in no way been suoh that they can be considered as the alternative Government.

The entire debate in the first phase of the Second Reading dealt with the hon. the Minister of Finance’s judgment concerning inflation. This side of the House through the mouth of the Minister of Finance, said that inflation developed as a result of the consumer demand for goods. The proposition from that side of the House was just the opposite. The whole question now is whether the hon. the Minister of Finance’s judgment was correct. I want to tell you, Sir, that his judgment was correct, because two-thirds of our total consumer spending is related to goods; 51 per cent of the average family’s income, after taxation, is spent on consumer goods, while 19 per cent is devoted to sport and recreation, etc. But those hon. members thought fit to reproach and to recriminate the hon. the Minister for a wrong judgment in this instance. In a moment I shall come to what they tried to do in this connection. The question is whether the hon. the Minister’s judgment was correct. In the middle of August he delivered his speech in this House, and he announced certain measures whereby money would be taken out of the consumer’s pocket. The question is whether he has succeeded in cooling the economy down, in taking money out of the hands of the consumer or at least developing in him a nonspending attitude? The hon. members said no; let him look at the cost pressure; let him look at the inflation being caused by the labour shortage. I want to re-emphasize this. I have here the consumer index that has just come to hand, dated 25th September, 1970. I think those hon. members, specifically the hon. member for Parktown, will agree that this is the first indication of whether the hon. the Minister’s judgment was correct or not. We make the following comparison. For Cape Town the consumer price index for August, 1970, was 101.6, and for July it was 101.1, an increase, therefore, of .5 on the previous month, but in July there was an increase of 2.3. Port Elizabeth is the exception. There the increase is 1.4, as against .8 the previous month, but all the other large centres of this country evidenced a considerable decrease in the upswing of the consumer price index. This supports the fact that the hon. the Minister’s judgment was correct, and it supports the fact that the judgment of that side of the House is to be doubted. Sir, I want to take a further look at that and state that their solution to this question of inflation was a Trojan horse. They saw in this an opportunity for the opportunistic infiltration of their philosophy into our economy, the philosophy of “the rate for the job”. That is what they saw their way clear to doing, and what they tried to bring about. Long before the time they tried to bring about a psychosis. That was a standpoint they adopted before the Minister of Finance delivered his Budget speech in this House; they were then already regimented into doing it. No one other than the hon. member for Hillbrow regimented them into doing it, and if he is not the one, he must tell me if he has anything to do with the United Party’s information service.

He has nothing to do with it.

Sir, I have here some United Party information documents. The one is dated 25th January, 1968, and it deals with labour. But the most interesting one is this one dated 4th December, 1969, which states: “Warning to workers and employers”. It is a bulky document. The interesting point here is that this document contains references that were used in most of the speeches of hon. members opposite to prove that the hon. the Minister of Finance’s judgment was incorrect. In other words, they came along to this House with a preconceived purpose of using the Trojan horse, cost inflation, as a means of bringing the Government and the country under the impression that a labour crisis had, in fact, developed. Sir, what a pathetic display they gave. They could not keep up this display for an unspecified time. Here is a scientific item in the Sunday Times’ Financial supplement …

Do you believe the Sunday Times?

It reads—

[Interjections.] Sir, how the hon. members on that side are protesting against the Sunday Times! It is a complicated item: I think a few members on that side of the House will perhaps understand it. But the conclusion to which the writer comes is this—

It is ridiculing that side’s standpoint. They could not for long keep up the debate about the so-called crisis that was at hand. In the Cape Argus of Saturday, 26th September, the following caption appeared—

It refers to companies that should have been hit by the so-called labour shortage. I have here the short-term index that does, admittedly, indicate a slight level tendency, but it is extremely slight by comparison with the sustained growth tendency over the past years.

What can hon. members on that side range against the facts of the matter? What defence can they bring to bear if the hon. the leader of the Opposition, when the Budget is about to be submitted, argues that only the party that can bring about a change in the labour pattern of this country has a long-term future? That was round about the time the Budget was delivered. That is why I say that it was their preconceived purpose to create a psychosis. The Opposition failed lamentably in their purpose. But that is not all. There are a number of other conditions the Hon. Opposition must comply with before they qualify as an alternative Government. In the first place there must consequently be no doubt about the U.P.’s policy. The voters must not for a single moment have any doubts about the consequences of the Opposition’s policy. The voters must have no doubts about the aims of that policy. Throughout this entire Session not a single member on that side of the House has devoted half an hour to speaking about the United Party’s policy.

In the second place, the Opposition must give a clear exposition of its philosophy. The hon. the Prime Minister directed a challenge at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the philosophy of the U.P.’s policy. What did we get? Up to the present day we have got nothing. One would have expected that with the Klip River by-election —and now the hon. member for Durban (Point) can join in the conversation—they would have had an opportunity to state their policy. Unfortunately the hon. member for Wynberg is not here now. At one meeting after another they argued from the wrong corners. They base their arguments on incorrect premises. They base their arguments on standpoints that are allegedly those of the National Party but in fact are not.

That is untrue.

I was there. I now want to say why it is true. And I put it to hon. members on this side of the House who attended those meetings. At Colenso the hon. member for Wynberg made certain statements in connection with the Liquor Act and the South African Police. When we pointed out her mistakes to her, she did not accept it. But at Bergville she apologized to us. She then said that she is an honest politician by way of exception. She apologized to us. However, as shadow Minister of National Education she must still come along and explain to this House what sections of certain Acts and what Acts she will repeal. Here I refer to that famous letter of hers that appeared in the Cape Argus in February of last year. Hon. members on that side of the House are aware of this problem. Hon. members must not hesitate to answer questions.

In the third place the hon. Opposition must not differ among themselves on cardinal issues. During this Session we once again saw the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout differing among themselves. We thus found the hon. member for South Coast differing essentially from other members on that side of the House.

Prove it.

It has been proved over and over again.

The hon. member for Zululand—and I request his attention—made a speech here. I want to put it to that hon. member that his statement also differed essentially from the United Party’s long-term object. In Hansard, Col. 287, he states the following—

I now want to ask the hon. member what he had in mind when he said that? Did he have in mind a State in which the Whites retain political authority, or a State in which their numbers prevail? The hon. member may give us a reply at a later stage. Was it numbers the hon. member had in mind, or was it political authority? If the hon. member had numbers in mind, does this mean that he will throw political authority overboard as soon as there are one or two or a thousand or five thousand or a million more non-Whites or Blacks than Whites? Is that what the hon. member meant? If that was what he was saying he fits in completely with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I refer him to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s Hansard of 18th May, 1959 (Col. 6038), where he stated the following—

These hon. members were very concerned about the statistics, not about what it would mean to us. because we say that it is political authority that counts, but on that side of the House the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says definitely that leadership depends on numbers. Numbers are therefore at the basis of their philosophy.

Where did he say it?

He said it here in the House of Assembly in 1959.

I have just quoted it to the hon. member. I can give the hon. member the Hansard column reference once again if he desires it. It is Col. 6038, and the speech was made on 18th May, 1959.

What did he say there?

But I have just told the hon. member. However, that is not all, but now that side of the House argues as if numbers are fundamental to the policy of this side of the House. The hon. member for Maitland is unfortunately not present, but when he spoke during the debate on the Bantu Administration and Development Vote, he spoke of the old Bantustan policy that allegedly had numbers as its point of departure. That was his argument. He supported the hon. member for Zululand in that. That is so, is it not? The hon. member for Zululand does not want to reply now, but he supported him. My final point is that the hon. Opposition does not understand the policy of this side of the House. When they present it to the voters, they present it as a distortion.

Tell us what your policy is.

The hon. member has been listening to discussions about that for more than 300 hours now I shall make a final statement. I presume the hon. member for Zululand contradicted himself in a moment of weakness when he said that an exclusive white State, would, in fact, be the ideal. We should like to have his reply to that.

An Opposition must oppose, we realize that. It must oppose in such a way that it can bluff the voters, if it does not agree with them. There are, however, certain priorities that must be determined. One of those priorities is the question of where South Africa’s interests lie. We take it that we shall be occupying the last trench side by side with the United Party, in a physical sense of the word, but what about the economic trench? There could also be such a last trench. A week or so ago the Rand Daily Mail very clearly pointed the way in a leading article to both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Progressive Party. This is what was said: The policy of separate development of this side of the House contains so much of value to South Africa on a short-term as well as on a long-term basis, that it can only be in the interests of our community if that side of the House throws in its lot with us.

Mr. Speaker, I have had considerable difficulty in following the thread of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (West’s) speech, because he seemed to jump from one subject to another without their being necessarily connected with each other. I would like to ask him straightaway does he identify himself with the questions put by the Financial Mail? It is extraordinary that this gentleman should get up and read out these questions if he does not identify himself with them. Perhaps even he has realized that some of them are so stupid that a Sub A child would know what the answers are. [Interjections.]

Why does he put them?

Yes, I want to know why he put such questions if he knows how stupid they are. He asks whether we are prepared to repeal section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Everybody in this Chamber knows that it has been said so often. He asked whether we would be prepared to repeal section 3 of the Physical Planning Act.

What will you substitute for section 77?

The hon. the Prime Minister has been told on many occasions what we will substitute for section 77. We will substitute far greater protection for the white worker than he has at present. [Interjections.] The hon. member wants to know whether we will repeal section 3 of the Physical Planning Act. He knows that we have undertaken on many occasions to repeal that section of the Act. He starts off by asking:

Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the answer sent to the Financial Mail was the following—

And the member for Bloemfontein (West).

I might say the member for Bloemfontein (West) as well. The Minister’s problem was whether we would allow non-Whites to serve Whites in the Post Office. We have difficulty in understanding the Minister. In every departmental store and tearoom and at every petrol station throughout South Africa non-Whites serve Whites. How can it be such a dreadful challenge to the United Party to ask whether we approve of something whioh is commonplace throughout South Africa? I leave the hon. member there and I suggest that he invests another 30 cents on Friday and reads the Financial Mail, and he will find all the answers there.

During the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote the hon. the Prime Minister put a pertinent question to me concerning something said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout about delimitation and the loading and unloading of seats. As I understand the situation, the hon. member has pleaded for greater equality between the values of votes in South Africa. He has made a study of this matter. He has studied various constitutions throughout the world as well as their systems. He has expressed a view of his own, to which he is perfectly entitled. The hon. the Prime Minister allows even a Minister to speak about a Colouredstan.

I have no quarrel about it. I just want to know where you stand.

The hon. gentleman has no quarrel. Well, Sir, I would say that he has certain very interesting suggestions which will be studied in due course. I feel then that perhaps the time may come when we shall proceed, as we have traditionally done in respect of any changes to the electoral law, namely to refer them to a Select Committee, where we try to hammer them out and work on the basis that we try to obtain unanimity on the subject. I believe that that is the right way to tackle problems of this kind.

We have had an interesting session, which started with the Government trying to explain away its setbacks in the General Election. We have the Prime Minister on record as having said the following:

We were particularly interested in this “opknappingswerk”, because during the election we had raised certain very important issues. We had hoped that progress would be made in dealing with those issues. They were the failure of the Government’s non-European policy, the failure of the Government to cope adequately with the manpower problem in South Africa, the neglect of the Government of the economic interests of the ordinary man in the street, the failure of the Government to play its proper part in combating the problems of the agricultural community, the failure of the Government to promote real national unity in South Africa, and the alarming authoritarian tendencies revealed by this Government. As I have said, we were interested in this “opknappingswerk”. We were interested indeed, not only in the country’s interests, but also because in the coming provincial elections the people of South Africa will have to decide whether there was improvement, whether that improvement was adequate or whether the Government needed further chastisement as a final prelude to expulsion from office. Do not let us delude ourselves. The provincial elections, although they are fought to some extent on provincial issues, are decided almost entirely on national issues.

I am prepared to meet you on that field.

I am most happy, Sir. They are aspects of the national drama much more than provincial conflicts, as the hon. the Prime Minister knows. Of course, we were prepared to be patient, because we have good reason to believe that this Government have grown so out of touch with the people that it now lacks the understanding and the insight necessary to initiate the reforms which are needed to restore good government to the country. I want to go further this afternoon. I want to say that even if this Government wanted to initiate reforms, it would find it difficult to do so. The fact is that under this Government the machine has become cumbersome and unmanageable. I believe that the machine has grown too big. The Government is spending too high a proportion of the country’s money. Proportionately it is employing too many of the country’s people. It is doing too much business in competition with its own citizens. It is laying down the law too much by way of legislation. There is too much administrative red tape and too many proclamations. It interferes too much with people’s daily life. Almost every department of its administration is proliferating and spreading like a noxious weed into the business of the people. Government monopolistic control and administration is notoriously not subject to the same competitive correctives that sharpen the efficiency of private enterprise. In the very nature of things a bloated government must result in inefficiency and mounting costs.

Let us look at the telephone service as just one example. There was a time when the cost of transferring an exchange line outside was about R3. Now I believe it is R20. Let us look at the installation charges of an exchange line. There was a time when only a nominal deposit was required. Now the fee is also about R20. In fact, the costs involved are becoming so high that one must conclude that the Government wants to deter people from becoming its customers and from acquiring a service which normally would increase the income of the Post Office.

Another aspect of the situation is the vast network of laws which the Government has enacted to support every detail of its race policy. This is a network which must inevitably lead to delays, to higher costs, which admits abuse and which encourages corruption. Tn short, administrative vested interests have been built up over the years which are not only clogging the efficient working of this Government’s machine, but which also seems to be effectively preventing reform. I believe that this is inevitable when you have a government which is essentially incompetent and which has been kept in power too long by the exploitation of artificial issues. I believe that there is a great deal of truth in what Professor Ben Roux said recently. Writing in New Nation, he said:

The country has just had an opportunity, and they did not pick you.

Yes, the country has just had an opportunity, and it is going to have another opportunity in October. I want to say that since the election we have waited in vain for any sign that the Prime Minister can implement his promise to bring about “opknapping” in the administration of the country. There are the same old shortages. There are the same old bottlenecks. There are the same old excuses. There are the same old platitudes. There is the same old rake’s progress and precious little gets done.

The Government itself is of course the main sinner. We tested it out during the session on the vitally important manpower issue. This is an issue from which problems are arising, which are not only well-known but are becoming more serious daily. We left no doubt in anybody’s mind what we wanted. We wanted better training, better use of white and non-white manpower, which is available to us. We wanted to see a higher growth rate. We wanted to see better living standards for everyone. We wanted greater economic strength and greater security for South Africa. What did we find on the Government’s side? We found no properly formulated plan to deal with the situation. We found a lot of talk about controlled employment of non-Whites, but no indication of the principles upon which the control would be applied. We found a government, which is afraid of non-white unemployment, wedded to policies which make such unemployment inevitable and which must lead to the paradox of a growing scarcity of white labour, accompanied by a surplus of black labour. The hon. the Prime Minister will be aware of the figures given by Professor Reynders at the recent Sabra conference on his expectation as to black unemployment in the few years lying ahead. We found Ministers contradicting each other on important issues. The outstanding example of which was when the Minister of Finance invited industrialists to enter into a dialogue with him as to the use of non-white labour in white areas. Ministers differed as to the meaning of the word “non-white”, whether it did or did not include Bantu labour. The Ministers of Labour and Bantu Administration were adamant that the term did not include Bantu. The Minister of Finance maintained an embarrassed silence. The hon. the Prime Minister in his dialogue with me seemed to support the view that he was not excluding Bantu. Indeed, the Prime Minister must have realized that, if Bantu were not included, the important suggestion of the Minister of Finance became meaningless.

Another example of confusion in Cabinet ranks concerns the statement by the Minister of Labour that it was still his policy that the number of black workers in white areas should be reduced. It was inherent in the Prime Minister’s statement to me that they would increase, even if it was only to the extent that much of the natural increase of the Bantu in the white areas would remain and eventually be employed there. What was even worse than this confusion, was the admission by the hon. the Prime Minister that the employment of Whites was increasing at a rate more rapid than that at which the white population was increasing. He said that the facts told us that between 1963 and 1967 the number of Whites in the labour market increased by 200,000 persons, which is 33,000 per year. That represents a growth of 2.7 per cent of the white labour force, which is much higher than the natural growth of the white population. Obviously, this state of affairs must lead to a situation where our white population will become so extended, that it will be quite incapable of filling the gap in our economic ranks. Then the crisis will indeed be upon us with overwhelming force.

I thought it was here already.

What I say is that it will be with us then with an overwhelming force. Yet the Prime Minister gives us no indication at all of how he is going to deal with that problem. He said that the Government would train as many people as they can to the highest level and try to increase productivity at every level.

He said firmly that trade unions would be consulted about any changes to be effected. He boasted, Sir, that one out of 50 of our Whites went to university. However, he did not say that the Whites in South Africa would virtually have to provide the sooial and economic leadership for our entire population of more than 20 million people. If one looks at the figure of our entire population, then it is only one out of 200 now that goes to university—a proportion so inadequate that our White people are going to be subjected to a strain which they just cannot bear indefinitely. Furthermore, the hon. gentleman boasted that from 1963 to 1969 the number of Whites in employment increased by 200,000, but he did not mention that the demand greatly exceeded the supply. He further told us that during these same six years 700,000 non-Whites were absorbed by the labour market. Well, the ratio between Whites and non-Whites taken up in employment differs from the population ratio and simply cannot be maintained. The Prime Minister has no suggestions for the necessary adjustment in our labour pattern, adjustments which inevitably have to be made. In fact, he did not deal at all with the growing shortages of skilled and semi-skilled labour forecast by the experts. I say once more that although he says that he fears non-White unemployment, he seems to be unaware of the fact that experts see that unemployment just round the corner. The Prime Minister tried to persuade us that the Planning Act was more honoured in the breach than in its observance. But nevertheless he told us that it would remain on the Statute Book—the biggest single handicap to expansion in South Africa at the present time. Our entrepreneurs are virtually unanimous in saying that because of the uncertainty the Act has created, investors are becoming nervous while the rate of investment in the manufacturing industry is actually declining. The hon. the Prime Minister tries to justify this aspect of Government policy on the basis that he is afraid of the clogging up of the big cities. This may be a rational fear but then it need not lead to irrational actions. Planning for the future does not mean that you must now strangle the natural growth points on which South Africa’s prosperity must rest. One can plan positively for growth, as the United Party did with its own Planning Act—the Natural Resources Development Act, 1947—without committing injustices to our existing cities. If the Government wants to succeed with its plans for the decentralization of industries and for the development of the reserves, it would be wise to encourage and stimulate activities in these industrial area. These are the economic dynamos to generate the wealth which we need to solve our racial and social problems. I believe the failure of the Government in respect of its planning to deal with our manpower problem has already led to increased inflation as our production lags behind the buying power of our people.

In a futile attempt to avert this the Government has lately been allowing imports on a scale which is, I believe, almost beyond our means. We find that the gap in our balance of payments is becoming very large—to the order of R618 million at the present time. Our gold production amounts to R800 million to cover that. But our gold production may fall and with that that gap can only be filled by greater production for export and for internal consumption, a greater production which is being inhibited by the Government’s policy in respect of the supply of labour and the uncertainties it has given rise to. I do not believe that the inducements to export contained in the present Budget are going to do much to improve the situation. Unless the Government takes adequate action to meet the problem the result is going to be inflation so spectacular that it could be described as official theft of the purchasing power of the people’s money to bring this into closer relation with the volume of goods legitimately available in South Africa I believe the Government’s advisers are obviously aware of these dangers but the Government is not seeking to remedy them by increasing production adequately. Instead, it is seeking to limit the amount of money in the hands of the people both by increasing taxation and by the imposition of compulsory loans and other fiscal measures. The success of these measures is, to say the least, doubtful and so the problems will remain with us. In the absence of more reasonable Government action to increase production we can only expect more severe budgetary measures next year. Here I want to reiterate and reinforce the warning uttered by the hon. member for Parktown yesterday—that if things go on as they are we have to expect a tough Budget next year as a result of the lack of planning on the part of this Government.

Why not rather attack the present Budget? Why worry about the next Budget?

This one is behind us already and already the forecasts of the hon. Minister of Finance are being proved to be more out than usual, already the taxes coming in are higher than he expected. We are already three quarters of the way through this year, so what is the good of attacking this Budget now?

But we are busy with it now.

Its effects have already been felt.

You are running away from it.

No, I am not running away. I am warning the people that one of the direct results of this Budget is going to be a harsh Budget next year. I believe it should have been a harsh Budget this year— indeed, it would have been a harsh Budget this year were there no provincial elections in the offing. The Government’s failure to cope with this problem has led to repercussions in a variety of spheres. One is in respect of housing, a question which has already been dealt with most eloquently by the hon. member for Green Point. This matter is particularly hard on young married couples who are beginning to accept adult responsibility in our society. At present prices the majority of them just cannot afford their own home. And, what is more, the position is getting worse by the day because theirs is the direct responsibility for the nation’s children for whom flat dwellings are not suitable. Architects in Cape Town tell me that building costs in this area have gone up by as much as 20 per cent in the last year alone. And they are still going up. This then is just another example of the lack of planning on the part of the Government for which the young South African family is suffering.

Taking a more long term view, there is an even more serious consequence of the Government’s inability to get to grips with our problems. I refer to the artificial limitation being placed on our economic growth rate by the Government’s ideology, by its attempt to bend our economy almost to breaking point in order to serve the Bantustan concept. I wonder how many more times I must draw the attention of this House to the fact that our growth rate is nothing extraordinary, nothing unusual. Does the hon. the Prime Minister realize yet that the Common Market as a whole during the past decade has developed just as fast as South Africa and the United States only slightly less fast? With their populations increasing more slowly than ours, their rate of growth and standards of living are improving faster than ours. That means that we are not going to draw immigrants, and that our position is not going to be comparable with that of the great Western powers. That means that we may find ourselves in difficulties in respect of the happiness of our own people.

But it is not only economic growth that is important in South Africa. In South Africa we are all conscious of the necessity for physical security and personal safety. I think this awareness arises from the fact that we have an unsolved race problem in South Africa and that our attempts to solve it have earned for us the hostility of large numbers of the countries of the world. This requires us to be strong enough to deter irresponsible steps to deny us, by the use of force or sanctions and things of that kind, our right to seek our own solution. Now I know that our people have the character and the moral courage to stand up to unjust pressures, but in the modern world courage alone is not enough; we need the equipment to make courage effective. We must have the material resources to equip our people without too great a sacrifice of our living standards.

To create those material resources we need the hands and the brains of every single subject of the State of South Africa. This, I believe, is where the Government fails us, and I believe the Government is failing us because of its slavish observance of the ideological precepts of a policy which I think the latest census figures have conclusively proved to be in ruins. I say the figures have conclusively proved it to be in ruins because despite the warnings from experts like Prof. Sadie, South Africa’s best-known demographer. and Prof. S. P. Cilliers, Head of the Department of Sociology at Stellenbosch University, against an over-hasty interpretation of the preliminary census figures released by the Minister, I believe there are nevertheless three or four facts which must be accepted.

The first, and perhaps the most important, of these is that over the last 10-year period the number of Bantu in the white areas has increased by at least 1.2 million. That is at the rate of approximately 120,000 a year. I deliberately say at least 1.2 million, because of the probable under-enumeration of Bantu in the white areas and the fact that during this period many Bantu employed in white areas were moved into new townships around our urban centres which have been declared or are part of the Bantu homelands. But the relevant Bantu are still employed in the white areas as before, in many cases in their old jobs. This means quite simply that we are not less dependent on black labour but probably more dependent on that labour than ever before, which in itself is a complete negation of one of the main objectives of the apartheid policy.

The second important point to which I want to direct attention is that while the number of Bantu in the white areas has increased by 1.2 million, the number of whites has increased by only 700,000, despite the Government’s immigration scheme, leaving us with the position that we are now 3.8 million Whites in the White areas, as against 8 million Bantu and 2.5 million Coloureds and Asiatics. This is so far from the parity in the white areas that Dr. Verwoerd postulated as the minimum for the achievement of the policy of separate development, an achievement to be reached by the year 2000, that the whole policy becomes even more of a pipedream. Even the suggestion that the percentage of Whites in the white areas has grown in the last 10 years from 25.8 to 26.2 per cent means that by the year 2000, provided all the present factors remain, the percentage of Whites in the white areas will only be of the order of about 27.4 per cent. The whole concept of the policy, if you accept the yardstick set by the former Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, vanishes into thin air and seems even more impossible of fulfilment than ever before.

And what will be the proportion if we follow your policy? [Interjections.]

The third point I think we should notice is that if present trends continue, then by the year 2000 there will be approximately 38 million Bantu at a minimum and 7 million Whites in South Africa and another 8 million or 9 million Coloureds and Asians.

Where do you get the figure of 38 million from?

I think it is a perfectly simple arithmetical sum if you take the present rate of increase at 3.6 per cent or 3.7 per cent.

Your figures are far too high.

They are not too high, as I think the hon. the Prime Minister will find if he looks at the new census figures. The point I want to make is that Prof. Rhoodie points out that we have yet to see the maximum growth tempo of the Bantu people because the Bantu’s infant mortality can be expected to decrease dramatically in the next three decades. Sir, this represents a population explosion that is going to test to the full our ability to feed our people and our ability to give them better living standards even without unnecessary clogs on our economy caused by slavish attention to apartheid ideology.

Lastly, Sir, this census raises another problem, and that problem is how the 6.9 million Bantu in the reserves exist at the present time. Tomlinson worked on figures available in 1951. On these figures he left no doubt in anybody’s mind that the Bantu in the reserves were living in dire poverty. According to Prof. J. J. Stadier of the University of Pretoria, writing in Sabra’s Journal for Racial Affairs for October, 1967, the per capita income of a Bantu in the homelands for the year 1959-’60 was only R25 a year, earned in the homelands, and if you added an estimated R150 million earned by migratory labourers that per capita income was increased to R53 per annum. He argued convincingly that the real product of the homelands per capita had not increased by 1967 but had in all probability fallen lower. Sir, this was the figure for the de facto population. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has since given a far higher figure for the de jure population.

I also stated what the position was with regard to the de facto population, and you know it.

T do not know it. The hon. gentleman spoke of the de jure population.

Based on wrong population figures.

But, Sir, it is uncertain how much was spent in the homelands. Sir, there is something else that has to be remembered and that is that when the Sabra experts made their calculations they had no inkling that the homeland population would increase by a staggering 90 per cent in the 20 years from 1950-’51, as the results of the present census would lead us to believe. All their guesses made in 1959 and the subsequent projections were probably far out in the light of the present figures. Sir, this means two things. The first is that living standards in the reserves must be even lower than was imagined. The second is that there must be massive unemployment in the reserves, when regard is had to the very small number of jobs created, even if we accept as correct the most optimistic of the estimates made by the Government in respect of new jobs inside the reserves or on the borders.

Sir, I recall what I said earlier in the debate on the censure motion when I spoke of unemployment in the reserves. I was challenged and was told that this could only be the position amongst people who did not want to work on the farms. Sir, that figure has never been dealt with by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I say again in the light of the figures of this census: What hope is there of these areas ever becoming viable economic units—surely a since qua non for harmonious co-existence, even if not a sine qua non for independence in the view of the Government?

I want to say again that I do not believe that we have sufficient information at this stage to interpret the real meaning of the census figures. There seems to be something wrong somewhere. Either the last census was hopelessly out or this one is. Some of the growth rates postulated are altogether too high to accept readily. But one fact does emerge in all its starkness and that, as Prof. Cilliers comments, is that on the present population figure of the reserves, unless economic development of those reserves is accelerated out of all knowledge, population pressures could result in an explosion. I believe that is correct. But has the Government any conception even now of how enormous is the task that is involved in that plan or how astronomical the costs are likely to be? What has been spent up to now is just chicken feed, compared with what will have to be spent. And the Government has no hope whatever of being able to make these vast sums available unless there is massive development in the existing white areas at faster economic growth rates than we are enjoying at the present time to generate the necessary wealth for that development. Once more the Government is faced with a dilemma: It cannot develop fast if it applies its policy and it cannot achieve its objectives unless it develops fast.

Government speakers in this and other debates have queried whether we are generating enough capital to be able to undertake faster growth rates. I have said before, however, that experience has shown that countries growing fast seldom, if ever, lack capital as the investors of the world are looking for such fields of investment. Nor do such countries tend to have balance of payments problems. They are able to build up their exports rapidly. I can see the inflationary dangers do exist from a faster growth rate. But they are not unavoidable provided always that productivity is pushed up. Mr. Speaker, the opportunities for increasing productivity in South Africa must be greater than in any other developed country of the world because of our vast resourcesof untapped and untrained labour in this country.

Even the critics of a higher growth rate, like Dr. Rieckert yesterday in The Argus, admit that at present the labour shortage is our first ceiling and should be raised. Despite this knowledge the Government has managed things so badly that there is still a serious shortage of labour. Estimates vary, but the shortage is probably for Whites, Asiatics and Coloured persons alone of the order of 55,000. A recent survey by Assocom estimates the present level of vacancies in commerce and allied industries alone to be as high as 35,000, of which 62 per cent are for Europeans, which is understandable. But 26 per cent of the vacancies are for Bantu workers, which is unbelievable. It would seem to me that this reflects very badly on Government labour policies.

I have outlined in this House before, the steps we on this side of the House would like to see taken to cope with this labour shortage. I have emphasized that those steps would be within the framework of our policy of the maintenance of white leadership over the whole of South Africa and that it would provide for the protection of the white worker.

Mr. Speaker, whilst on that subject, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question? With a view to the provincial elections, how will the various races be represented in your provincial councils?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has asked this question before. I do not know whether he again asks it at this stage to put me off what I was going to say. I would just like to complete what I was saying about labour. Then I will be happy to deal with that question. I wanted to say that I have emphasized those steps before, namely that the changes would be within the framework of our policy of the maintenance of white leadership over the whole of South Africa, that it would provide protection for the white worker and that those steps would be taken in co-operation with the trade unions on a basis of collective bargaining. I do not propose to outline those steps again. However, in order to meet the question of the hon. the Prime Minister, I want to say that he knows that our policy is for communal councils to replace the provincial councils. Provincial councils would be for Whites only. There would be a Coloured council for South Africa and communal councils for the Bantu in the various areas including those who have broken their tribal affiliations and are permanently settled in the white areas.

What about the Indians?

The Indians will have a communal council which will deal with their own affairs. All the communal councils would have a link with Parliament by way of a statutory or a standing committee.

You pinched it from us and now you pretend it to be your own.

The hon. the Prime Minister and his predecessors tried to steal the policy from the United Party, but when they had a select committee to deal with that matter they did not deal with the necessary link between Parliament and the communal councils. Now they are running into difficulties because they did not have the foresight to listen to us when those councils were brought into being.

On the question of economic development, I attempted to initiate a dialogue by challenging the Government to accept that we are not strong enough to-day, nor do I believe that we are ever likely to be, to develop the Bantu areas to sovereign independent states, each economically strong enough to support its Black population as citizens of an independent state. I pointed out that if we inhibited growth, in an attempt to achieve this end, our rate of growth might well be inadequate for certain very important objectives which will affect not only our economic future but also our security. I suggested that the Economic Advisory Council should be called in not as an arbiter of future policy, but to place before the public the facts in respect of what future growth rates could be if Government policy were altered to abandon this objective as opposed to what growth rates would be with the present scheme. My approaches have been rejected as they have been on this issue in the past. The Government goes on blindly and I do not think that the Government itself knows what the cost will be. I do not believe that the Government wants to know what the cost will be, because it is afraid to tell it to the public of South Africa.

By contrast, we believe that South Africa is capable of greater things which could give greater security to everyone. It seems to me that one of the big differences between this Government and ourselves is in regard to the position that the white man should occupy in South Africa. We believe that the white man’s ability, and the maximum contribution he can make, is indispensable to South African society. It is indispensable all over South Africa. The Government seems to think it is only necessary in certain areas and only to a limited degree, but we believe that if we use that ability to the full, we can soon wipe out degrading poverty for all races. We believe that our people can become rich enough to be able to create a more compassionate society, a society which will not only be richer in material terms, but also in terms of human happiness. To achieve this we shall have to use the skills and abilities of every individual in our population. The Government seems to think that it can keep people happy by using the white man’s skills in only limited areas and restricting his usefulness by insisting that he continue to do certain jobs even if non-Whites who can do those jobs, are available. It believes it can keep people happy even if only very limited use is made of non-white skills and our growth rate is kept not only below an easily reached potential, but is of such a measure that because of increasing population our living standards will lag behind those of the great countries of the Common Market and other countries of the Western world.

To achieve our objectives, education is a matter of key concern. I believe a recent international survey has shown that there is a very significant correlation between the index of higher education and the gross national product of countries. I believe much of our education is wrongly directed. We spend more than three times as much on the education of the retarded child in South Africa as we do on the gifted child, but it is the latter group which is primarily responsible for the advancement of our society. I know that expenditure on education has increased very considerably over the past 20 years, but I do not share the Government’s view that what has been done is adequate. It is certainly not adequate for the sort of progress we should like to see and it does not measure up to what the more advanced countries of the Western world are spending. We believe, on the evidence available to us, that we should probably be spending twice as much on education as we are doing at the present time.

But not only are we lagging behind here; as I pointed out a minute ago, the Government is allowing job reservation to be used to keep Whites pegged down to doing jobs which non-Whites could easily do. Thereby they not only block the advance of those Whites to higher graded jobs, but they are slowing down the entire growth rate of the country. There are many examples. The collection of night soil in Durban, I believe, is one. There are countries of the world, like Sweden, where there are permanent bodies consisting of representatives of the trade unions, the employers and government departments that are constantly engaged in a review of labour patterns with the object of reclassifying jobs in an effort to raise productivity. I believe such a body in South Africa could examine our needs, analyse the situation and make recommendations for the State and industrial councils to consider. I have no doubt that the activities of such a body could lead to an increase in the productivity of our entire labour force and could raise the standards and the status of our workers, but especially of our white workers. Unfortunately the seeds of such proposals seem to have fallen on arid, barren ground.

Sweden has shown us something else, too. It has shown us that in the modern world one achieves economic growth by moving people from less productive work to more productive work. The countries which have grown the fastest in the last 20 years are those where there is this mobility of labour. Sweden has an autonomous agency working with the Government, systematically promoting the mobility of labour. It anticipates the job opportunities of to-morrow and also the redundancies of to-morrow. It systematically prepares men to move from one kind of employment into another and has done so with singular success. I believe the lack of growth in the United Kingdom at the present time, or its very slow growth, is due particularly to the fact that it resists change in this direction. But there is no government in the world which, by virtue of the job reservation policies of this Government, restricts the mobility of labour and the growth we could get from that mobility as this Government does in South Africa. The Government does not seem to appreciate that in the long run the white man’s contribution will be judged not for his discriminatory laws, but by his achievements in giving leadership and inspiration towards a wealthier and happier society in South Africa.

It is for this reason that the United Party accepting as it does that progress, civilization and order will depend upon the white man, believes that it is essential to create a dynamic society progressing to higher standards for all, to spread the new riches created in that society justly and fairly and to be able, as a result of those new riches, to eliminate poverty and misery wherever they exist. We must never forget that the world is a dynamic place today and that the rates of growth of which we are proud are being equalled and surpassed in many other parts of the world, including certain Eastern countries at the present time outside of Japan. This is just not good enough. We are a richly endowed country as far as natural resources are concerned. Our Whites certainly have the ability, and many of them the educational standards, to develop our country much faster if the best use is made of that ability.

Discriminatory laws will never secure our future. In the long run it is only the security that arises from economic strength that will ensure the future of civilized life in South Africa. That security will only be permanent if the white man can create a dynamic and just society and can achieve the wealth necessary to move South Africa in the direction of what I have described before as a more compassionate society. I think it is generally accepted that our welfare measures have not kept pace with the increase in our wealth at the present time. The compassionate society which we envisage will be one that is much more concerned with the welfare of all our citizens, and in which the wealth we engender is used to create higher living standards for everyone. This would enable us to spend far more on education for our citizens, and certainly for our white citizens, so that they will use the maximum of their ability, regardless of the financial position of their parents. They will have to provide the leadership in South Africa. It will enable us to afford better technical training, directed towards greater productivity. Most important of all, it will create greater opportunities for all our people.

Such a society would afford better protection against sickness by means of free hospitalization and a State-assisted medical aid scheme to protect our people from the economic disaster of sickness, but maintaining at the same time the patient’s right to choose his own doctor. Such a society would also provide better protection against infirmity with more realistic disability pensions, and particularly more attention and better pensions for those disabled in war and for those limited in their activities because of blindness. We would provide better protection against old age with a national contributory pension scheme, free of the means test. We would certainly do more about the establishment and the provision of adequate running expenses for old age homes. We would also insist on better treatment for war veterans. We would certainly see to it that veterans of the 1914-T8 war receive veteran’s pensions without the means test, as is the position in the case of veterans of some of our earlier wars. I wonder whether hon. members realize that a boy who joined up i.n 1914 at the age of 18, is now 74 years old. There cannot be many of those veterans left. They are dwindling and fading away, as old soldiers do.

I believe that we can also give more attention to our children and their care, and proper attention to better housing, particularly for young married couples. I know that we expect the community to play its part in welfare organizations, but there is no doubt whatever that if the State were wealthier, the State would be able to help to a greater extent, especially as many of these organizations are feeling the pinch at the present time because of the sales tax, higher salaries and other living costs. I believe, too, that a more compassionate society would have a greater regard for the dignity of the individual. There is nothing which invades the dignity of the individual more than grinding poverty. The combating of that poverty can best be undertaken by providing more opportunities for all sections of our population to develop and to raise their own standards by hard work, application and enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, that is how we see the South African society of to-morrow. It will be a rich society, a society so prosperous that it can afford to solve these problems which to-day seem intractable, and to construct the solutions we find on firm foundations of justice and equity for all men. It will be a strong society, a society so strong that we shall ward off the threats of the prejudiced and have time to work out solutions in the light that God has given us, in the light of our own conscience. It will be a compassionate society, a society so truly compassionate that it will not tolerate the misery of poverty, the ugliness of injustice or the suffering that can be avoided in the lives of the sick, the aged and those stricken by life’s misfortune. That is the society we see. We know that it can be founded only on the industry and the loyalty of all our people. Such a society is the real challenge to South Africa. I believe that this Government is too timid, too fearful, to accept it and to meet it. The United Party accepts it and will meet it. I believe that the people in time will use the United Party as the instrument which will build the rich, the strong and the truly compassionate society for all our people in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, somebody once asked a student what he thought of the author of the Book of Ecclesiastes. The student replied that he did not really know, but thought that he was a clever man. Then the questioner said, “No, he was the greatest pessimist who ever lived.” When we listen to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the future of the Whites in South Africa, I think that we can award a medal to him as being the greatest political pessimist in South Africa. In the time at his disposal the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again spoke to-day about all sorts or things, but in actual fact he gave us nothing new. What he did give us which was new, was a few faulty figures in regard to the statistics which were made available to us recently. Amongst other things the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Coloured population and said that they would number between 8 million and 9 million by the end of this century.

Along with the Indians.

Even with the Indians added. The statistical projections in regard to the Coloured population indicate that by the end of the century the figure will be approximately 4½ million. Therefore, that figure of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition helps him along on his road of pessimism. However, it does not shed any light for us on this matter.

I should like to come back to a few of the points which were stressed by the hon. member in the course of his speech. He referred, inter alia, to the political policy statement by the Government and the National Party which was ostensibly the basic cause of what is wrong in South Africa and which does not guarantee any future to the Whites in South Africa. The question which occurs to me now, is what party in South Africa has actually adopted a political ideology or basic premise which does offer any future to the Whites. Actually, there is only one party which is clinging to an outmoded political idea, i.e. the United Party. It is the United Party which, through the mouth of its Leader, has repeatedly come forward with the idea that we should have a united nation of 20 million people in South Africa.

[Interjections.] Over the past number of years he has expressed this idea time and again.

Quote it.

He referred to “one nation of 20 million people”.

That is untrue.

Let us now pay attention to what the hon. member said today. To-day he substituted the word “society” for the “nation”. He toned it down a little by using the word “society”. In other words, it is still the same concept of unity, the same concept of including Whites, Bantu, Coloureds and Asiatics under one overall roof. It is still the same and is merely another form of the one-nation theory of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is often the case that they want to bring the world under the impression that the National Government is a rigid Government with rigid and antiquated ideas to which it is clinging desperately. This one-nation idea, or this one-society idea, is a very old idea—as a matter of fact, over the years it has been proved to be a lost idea and one which has been doomed to failure. We found in the British Empire the idea of an overall organization, the idea of doing away with the identity of nations. That idea of unity was broken by the power of nationalism. In the end the British Empire merely became a shell, and all that was left was the British Crown, which served as a symbol of that unity. I say that nationalism broke this idea. In the federation established by the British here in Central Africa, the same idea obtained, but there it also broke down. Why?—because it was based on the wrong premise, the premise that peoples are willing to give up their own identity for the sake of political unity and co-operation. Nationalism destroyed the continued existence of the federation in Central Africa. But in spite of these things the hon. the Leader of the Opposition persists in coming forward with this idea of unity, this vague and false idea of unity. That is why he is so pessimistic in regard to the future of our country; that is why he does not see any light; that is why his watchword is, “There is no hope!”—words which he once again used to-day. This is what he says in regard to the Government’s policy, if we should continue on the road to separate development. The objection which we have to this fundamental statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, is that in their approach to the matter they disregard the identity of the various peoples—they disregard that important principle of the individual identity of separate peoples; they disregard the major differences of language and culture which exists amongst the peoples in South Africa. In spite of those differences the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is still referring to “one society” to-day!—in spite of the great diversity of the languages, cultures and people who do not understand one another and do not have the same national aspirations. In spite of these things, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition persists in his idea of “one society”. And then he is terribly pessimistic in regard to the future—“No hope for the future!” is what he says. As long as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition persists in disregarding the diversity of peoples in South Africa, as long as he disregards their individual identities and the will of each of these peoples to subsist separately and to work out its own salvation, the National Party will remain in power.

In keeping with his pessimistic approach, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again said here to-day that there was no hope of our small white population being able to carry in future the economic development of the large number of non-white peoples. If we adopted the attitude that this small white people would have to accept the sole responsibility for the progress and development of the various Coloured peoples, we would have a very hard time indeed. But the idea is not that we should drag these people along the road of progress. Our entire policy is based on our guiding and helping these people along the road of development which leads to individual nationhood and economic progress. This is, therefore, no reason for writing off the various Bantu homelands as being states which will never become economically viable, i.e. merely because they are still in a state of being undeveloped or because they themselves do not have the capacity. As we help them to stand on their own legs and to get into their stride, they themselves will to an increasing extent render a contribution to their own economic progress and to creating their own future. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should take cognisance of the fact that there is no need for us whatsoever to accept that the Bantu peoples themselves will never render a contribution. On the contrary; they will, to an increasing extent, render a contribution in regard to their own progress and their own development. Eventually they will stand on their own legs. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apply in respect of our Bantu homelands a criterion different from the one which Britain applied in respect of the gaining of independence by Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana? At that stage we never heard him saying that those countries were not economically viable, that they would not be able to stand on their own legs in the foreseeable future. No—at that stage it was done on good authority and it was good for Southern Africa. But when we guide our own Bantu peoples along the road to self-government and a separate existence, many objections are raised. Yesterday the hon. member for Sea Point asked this question here: Who wants sovereign Bantu homelands? This is not a question to put to us; it is not our concern. We are partly responsible for it, but it is actually the Bantu’s own concern and his own right. What is the responsibility of this Parliament in regard to this important matter?—not to say that we want independent Bantu homelands, self-governing black states; this is not our responsibility. It is our task to make provision so as to enable the Bantu to gain independence when they ask for it and rightly lay claim to it. This is the responsibility of the Whites. We cannot dismiss this important matter cheaply or lightly. The merit of this Government and of the National Party in regard to the nonwhite peoples of South Africa, is to place them on a road leading to an identity of their own, and once they have reached that stage in their development they may ask for it—and sooner or later they will ask for it, if we have regard to what happened in the history of peoples and nations. When they ask for it, we must be prepared to give it to them. In fact, the hon. the Prime Minister has already said that it will be done in this way. We want to suggest to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his approach is an outmoded one, an approach which is doomed to failure in South Africa, with its various nations, languages and cultures. He must, therefore, reconsider it. We in South Africa do not recognize or accept the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s recipe for a united nation under white leadership. As against that we make provision for a diversity of leadership in accordance with the diversity of peoples living in South Africa.

Now, Sir, permit me to deal with the hon. member’s objections against certain financial measures and the general financial policy of our Government. The hon. member said here, amongst other things, that they were striving after “physical security”; they were asking for economic stability and progress—“greater economic strength” are the words he used. As a rule I do not take part in the financial debates, but I have been reading the debates for quite a number of years, and I remember that on a certain occasion, after 1948, a person such as the late Mr. Havenga, as the Minister of Finance, said that the United Party’s financial policy was absolutely short-sighted. What was their criticism? In the Budgets presented by the National Party there has usually been, from year to year, a surplus of revenue over expenditure, and on every occasion the charge of “over-taxation and an unnecessary burden on the people” was levelled. This is the approach of the United Party. [Interjection.] I shall reply to you in a moment; just keep quiet for a while. I say that this was said by Mr. Havenga as long ago as that, and essentially this is still the financial policy of the United Party to-day, a short-sighted, narrow outlook on the future of South Africa, which wants to consume everything they earn every year, which is willing to spend more than they can afford. On that basis the “greater economic strength”, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is referring, does not exist. A people that wants to create its own future cannot rely on its capital works programme, its expansion programme, having to be financed with borrowed money all the time. Over the years it has been the policy of the National Government to guide and help our people to contribute from its current revenue account a share to its capital works programme. This was not only the case in Mr. Havenga’s time. A person such as the late Dr. Dönges said here on more than one occasion that we were only too pleased if there was a surplus so that we could by those means make a contribution to the essential development of South Africa by drawing on our own revenue.

To-day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came forward here with the other leg of their approach, i.e. free hospitalization and all sorts of concessions on a large scale. Of course, he says this with a view to the provincial election. But free hospitalization has been put to the test before, and it is not as wonderful a thing as the Leader of the Opposition considers it to be. On the contrary; there are many misgivings and the public itself has its misgivings in this regard. Under free hospitalization we had the experience that some of our best hospitals were filled to capacity with skolly boys who had been involved in street brawls. They ran to the hospitals with head wounds, whilst deserving people were unable to find beds in hospitals. For that reason I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition and his party that this is just another part of a short-sighted financial policy which does not hold any good for South Africa. The National Party has been saying this for years, and we say it in 1970: Make South Africa economically strong and independent. This is also what we strived after in those days when we were still part of the British Empire. At that time we saw that if, eventually, we wanted to stand on our own legs politically, we would have to be economically independent.

Does this apply to the Bantustans as well?

Yes. in principle it applies to the Bantu homelands. But what will happen in the years to come, you want to have there right now, and if you do not have it there right now, you use it as an argument against our policy. It is not an argument at all. Sir, I say the National Party says: Make South Africa economically strong and independent. It is our policy to say that the population of South Africa should work and save. Our people should as far as possible finance its capital works itself. It is one of the great achievements of our Government that, when the Orange development project was announced at the time, the Government was able to say, in reply to the question as to where we were going to get the money from, that South Africa would pay for it itself. These are the fruits of a far-sighted policy of financial planning and development.

I want to refer to another point that was emphasized by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said here inter alia that the Physical Planning Act “is the biggest single handicap for our industrialists”. I want to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that in this matter, too, he is very short-sighted. In a country such as the United States of America we had an unplanned and uncontrolled industrial growth over a long period, an industrial growth of vast dimensions, and what is the problem that the U.S.A. is experiencing to-day in regard to this matter?

The problem of the U.S.A. is that its tremendous industrial development has placed it in an embarrassing position; that public bodies and persons cannot keep up in creating the necessary infrastructure and in removing the refuse of the industrial world. This is how matters are over there: The private sector undertakes, develops and manufactures, and the public sector has to do everything in its power to remove the refuse, and it cannot keep up. Essentially this underlines to us a problem with which South Africa will have to contend in the future if it does not take this into account. Furthermore, we have an additional problem, i.e. that we cannot allow our Bantu population to leave their own homelands and come flocking into our industrial areas in an uncontrolled manner, for this would make the problem an even greater one. For that reason, Sir, the Physical Planning Act is an essential component of South Africa’s future development, and if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says to-day that it is the “biggest handicap” for our industrialists, then he is not taking a correct view of the future and he does not see it clearly; then he is against proper planning with a view to the needs and the problems of the future.

Why did you appoint the Rieckert Commission?

That is why I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we should take a serious view of this matter if, in the future, we do not want to come up against certain bottlenecks which will be created through uncontrolled industrial development; then we must plan now, and then we must provide for space. In the United States this is such a serious matter that no less a person than President Nixon himself has launched a campaign in regard to clearing up the environment of his country. At present he is conducting a campaign in order to make his entire nation and his entire people conscious of the fact that if they want to safeguard their continued existence, large-scale industrial decentralization must take place, and greater lungs must be created for every industrial city. Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is disregarding those facts to which other countries with more experience and a longer history in this regard are bearing testimony to-day and against which they are warning us. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks us to share his views. Sir, industrial decentralization is imperative if we do not wish to overload and overtax the existing infrastructures. Industrial decentralization is imperative if we want to restrict the pollution of our environs to a minimum. Industrial decentralization, especially border industries, is essential, particularly in South Africa with its heterogeneous population. Our cities have become a concentration of people who represent different national aspirations, largely differing ways of life, different languages and cultures, and then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is still talking about one community!

I want to conclude with another thought. Sometimes one is amazed at observing the political short-sightedness of the Leader of the Opposition and his party. I want to conclude to-day with this statement, i.e. that the United Party is a party with little or no political integrity. Sir, I want to illustrate to you why I say this. Earlier this year we witnessed here an attack made by the hon. member for Newton Park on members on the Government side, amongst others a Minister who had allegedly obtained a Land Bank loan. On a high level he received here a proper and decent reply. He was informed, but what did he do? He and his supporters went into the country and made a political issue out of it. They made a political issue out of the Land Bank, which is an autonomous body. What is more, on behalf of the United Party some of these people pointed a finger at people on this side, both in the House of Assembly and the Senate. Yes, they stood on a platform and pointed at people on this side, whilst they themselves had Land Bank loans. To my mind it is beneath common political decency that responsible people of a party should go into the country with a matter which was explained, and which is known. On a certain occasion I made inquiries with a senior official of the Land Bank to find out what the Land Bank’s policy is in regard to this matter. They explained it to me. In spite of the information which was available and what was said here, hon. members on that side of the House made a point of spreading cheap gossip all over South Africa. What did they actually do? They implicated the members of this House in the matter. They cast doubts upon the members of the Senate and of the House of Assembly. For that reason I want to express the hope that in these matters we shall act with more fairness, more responsibility, and more decency in the future.

I want to mention another matter, i.e. that in the course of the recent general election the so-called Herstigte Party interferred with one of the cardinal points in the old Union Constitution and in the Constitution of the Republic. They made the statement that as far as they were concerned, Afrikaans would be the first official language in the future; in other words, that English would be scrapped or relegated to a second official language. I have never seen the hon. the Leader of the Opposition taking a stand in this regard. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. member for East London (City) why I am asking this question in my stupidity. In my constituency there was a peculiar fraternization and understanding between the candidates of the United Party and of the Herstigte National party. I gained the impression that my party and I were the common enemy, who had to be fought. What is more, I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that in the constituency of Parow, where he is a voter, they did not have a United Party candidate; they only had a Herstigte Party candidate and a National Party candidate. Canvassers in Parow brought H.N.P. supporters to the polls in cars displaying portraits of the Leader of the Opposition.

What absolute rubbish!

I shall furnish the hon. member here in this House with proof to this effect. I knew the hon. member would feel bad now. In these circumstances I have asked myself whether we in South Africa have already achieved something in our political progress. I have asked myself whether there are certain cardinal points, on which we do at least agree as good South Africans, so that we may say as man to man that we accept and recognize certain points. The hon. the Prime Minister has very definitely taken a stand in regard to this maner. This is an old, acknowledged principle, which was also written into the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has remained silent to this day. He has not remained silent because this is so self-evident, for with them the recognition of two official languages with equal rights is not as self-evident as they want to suggest, but he has remained silent for the sake of a number of votes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it is just as stupid for the hon. member to say that we have taken no part in the fight that they have with the Herstigtes, as it would be were I to say to the Nationalist Party that they do not interfere in our fight with the Progressive Party. I do not want to follow the hon. member as far as finance is concerned, because that is not my longsuit. [Interjection.] One should not speak about something unless one knows what one is speaking about. The hon. member referred to the Central African Federation, which has broken up, as an example of how a policy of federation cannot work. When one has to try and argue with people, it is difficult if one is not able to argue on the same basis. It is absolutely and completely irrelevant to compare …

Why?

I will tell the hon. member why. That federation did not succeed because it was, amongst other things, purely a geographical federation. This Government itself wants to administer the very concept which is the basis of our solution for South Africa’s future. That is to say, they believe that the Coloureds and the Indians should have a communal council without any geographic boundaries. What is the Coloured Council but a council which represents all the interests of the Coloured people who do not live in a separate state? That is precisely what they want to do with the Indian population. What is the difference between that and what we propose in principle, except that we say there shall be a federal parliament which will control the destiny of all those peoples and that they should be consulted by that parliament by means of representatives? If they can have it for that purpose, then why can we not extend the same concept which they espouse to Bantu in rural areas and to Bantu in urban areas?

I want to leave the hon. member there, because it has become necessary to come back again to the question of what we may call the Marendaz-De Wet affair.

Oh, we are so sick of that.

The hon. member may be sick of it, but I can also say that we are somewhat sick of not getting an answer about it. If I may say so, since the last time this matter was discussed, namely under the Prime Minister’s Vote, the matter has changed considerably. Now there is a completely new case which has to be dealt with and which has to be met.

The situation we now have is that it now appears that in the first place when the hon. the Minister of Health spoke on the subject in the House, on 23rd July this year, and again on 16th September this year, he told the House several untruths. Secondly, when he spoke to the hon. the Prime Minister, before the hon. the Prime Minister defended him in this House, he must have told him some untruths. Thirdly, it appears that he told the Police untruths about this matter on 16th August, 1960. If any of these matters is in fact so, if this is proved to be so, and I shall demonstrate that that is so, he ought not to remain in the Cabinet.

It is no good asking the hon. the Minister to resign. He would probably say that he had never been a Cabinet Minister.

Are you proud of yourself, Mike?

When I have finished, perhaps the hon. member will tell me whether I have done the wrong thing or not. I make no excuse for raising this matter here. It is no good saying: “Are you proud of yourself?”; it is a matter of public importance to be dealt with here. Indeed, as witness to that, let me call the hon. the Minister himselfHe said on 23rd July of this year (Hansard, Col. 277)—

This is a matter to be raised in this House. The hon. the Minister himself concedes it. He went on to issue a challenge in that debate. He said—

Well, Sir, I proposeto give the House proof of these events. This is not a question of character assassination, as was alleged by the hon. the Minister himself when this matter was debated. It has nothing to do with the personality of anyone. It has to do with the integrity of a Minister of the State. That is what this matter is about.

If those statements he made were untrue and if he knew they were untrue, they are lies. That is a matter that we must decide. But there is a precedent in other countries that, if lies are told, that should terminate the membership of that person in the Cabinet. I am sure that our standards are as high as those of any other country.

Concerning the first question, whether or not untruths were told in this House, I want to point out a few matters. When the hon. the Minister first spoke on 23rd July, he said nothing whatsoever about whether he was a director of Marendaz Diesel Company or whether he knew anything about the company. In fact, he gave quite the opposite impression. In Col. 277 he said:

Now, what was the hon. the Minister trying to convey? He said nothing about an association with a company. The impression is that he just did that. That is all the information he gave. It just happens that part of that information is in any event untrue.

On a second occasion, in Col. 4272, he spoke in the Prime Minister’s Vote and said the following—

He was referring to what the hon. the Prime Minister said in attempting to defend him. What the Minister said, is most interesting. He continued—

That is the first passage with which he associates himself. He continued—

The exact word was “gemors”.

Sir, counsel can only give an opinion on the facts which are given to him, as everyone here knows. I should like to know whether some of these facts which have subsequently appeared, indisputable facts such as letters by the hon. the Minister, were with counsel when they gave their opinion.

In this connection I should like to mention an aspect of parliamentary procedure, both in respect of counsel’s opinion, from which the hon. the Minister quoted, and in respect of the Attorney-General’s file, from which the hon. the Prime Minister quoted. I should like to quote from the third edition of Kilpin’s Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa. On page 91 he states—

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to lay that opinion and the Attorney-General’s file on the Table, or does he feel that it is not in the public interest to do so?

It remains for us to see what the other evidence is. As far as the Minister’s being a director or not being a director is concerned, one wonders what the opinion would have been had this information been available. In the Sunday Times of last week one finds a letter. It is the first time that this letter has appeared. It is the very letter that was written in this regard when the hon. the Minister was invited to become a director of this company. It states—

That is the letter from the company. What is interesting is that that very letter bears on it some marks by the hon. the Minister. His name was spelt “Carl” instead of “Carel”. Apparently that has been changed in his own writing. An “e” has been inserted. His address is incorrectly spelt. One “r” has been deleted. On the back of that very same letter, in the writing of the hon. the Minister, one finds the Minister’s names and a box number, namely “P.O. Box 232, Vanderbijlpark”. That was left with the company, and that address, P.O. Box 232, Vanderbijlpark, is also in form “J”, filed with the Registrar. Where else could that have come from, but from the hon. the Minister? It was on that very letter in which he was asked to be a director. Did counsel have that information, and would that have made any difference to their opinion?

There is another letter about a photograph. One finds that letter also in the last issue of the Sunday Times. The letter is dated 29th January, 1960. I do not want to read it all out. In it the hon. the Minister deals with various matters. It is a letter addressed to the Marendaz company. It deals with various aspects of the company, and then one finds this significant passage. The hon. the Minister is asked about a photograph of himself on a brochure, and he says:

Surely, you do not put photographs of shareholders on your brochures? Otherwise, good heavens! anyone could have his photograph put in the brochure. Surely you only put the photograph of a director on it. But one wonders whether counsel had that letter.

Then, Sir, we come to perhaps the most important aspect of the whole of the defence of the hon. the Prime Minister of the hon. the Minister and his reply. The gravamen of his case is this. He somehow or other was not a director because he got legal advice that he was not. He only wrote that letter to get out of the mess. It appears in Hansard, column 4272. In other columns the hon. the Prime Minister attempts to show what a bad fellow this Marendaz was. And then in column 4131, the Prime Minister on being asked by Mr. S. J. M. Steyn “If he had not been a director, why then was he in a mess?”, replied: “Because he was up against a rogue.” Later on when Mr. S. J. M. Steyn interjected: “He resigned because he was not a director” the Prime Minister replied: “Because he wanted to extricate himself without any problems from the situation in which he had been involved by this fellow”. One gets the impression that he had been put in this “gemors”, that he wanted to extricate himself from it, and that was why he wrote this letter. But what we did not know, and what I believe the hon. the Prime Minister could not have known when he made that speech in this House during the discussion of his Vote, was that on the very same day he wrote another letter to Marendaz. The first letter, namely the letter of resignation, which I should like to read for purposes of the record, said—

The same day he wrote this letter. It reads—

Not quite the same tale. It is not the tale of the man who wanted to get out of it because he was in a “gemors”. The letter proceeds—

That is quite a different story. I am quite sure the hon. the Prime Minister did not know it. And then he said—

Then I quote the last sentence—

Now, Mr. Speaker, there it is.

Was that the “skelm”?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I asked whether that was the “skelm”.

That is what he was referred to as. He was referred to as a “skelm” by the hon. the Prime Minister. Now, if I may say so, that letter makes nonsense of everything the hon. the Minister said, and nonsense of everything the hon. the Prime Minister said, As any other advocate the hon. the Prime Minister, who took this brief to defend the hon. the Minister, had to stick to the story he got. That is what he had to defend. He could not make up something for the hon. the Minister, as no other advocate could. He certainly would not do it here. What he did was to tell him a cock and bull story which was devoid of all truth. The hon. the Prime Minister was put in this individious position that he then had to deliver this sort of nonsense not having the facts. One wonders again whether counsel would have given the opinion they did give if they had had this letter. The hon. the Prime Minister did not have that letter. He did not know about it. The hon. the Minister of Health did know about it. He wrote this very letter.

The next untruth, in my submission, is his explanation of the fact that he wrote that letter in that particular tenor. In column 4272 of Hansard of this Session he said that he wrote this letter of resignation in that particular tenor, in that friendly way because he knew the people he was dealing with. The letter I have just read surely puts a lie to that and indicates that that is palpably false. If that is his case which he stated to this House, then I say it is demonstrably untrue. But to make quite sure that it is untrue I want to refer to a letter which also appeared in the Sunday Times, written one year later. According to the Sunday Times on the 20th March, 1961, the Minister wrote the following letter to Capt. Marendaz—

Now, if he wanted to get out of the “gemors” and he did not want to deal with people like that, how do you square it with these facts? It makes nonsense of the hon. the Prime Minister’s defence of the hon. the Minister! For that I am not blaming the hon. the Prime Minister because he can only do what he can with the goods given to him. It appears that the Minister of Health did not tell the Prime Minister the truth. At the very lowest he withheld important and material facts from the Prime Minister before he defended him and by doing so made a fool of the Prime Minister.

Furthermore, he also made untrue statements to the Police. I have the Hansard report of the hon. Prime Minister’s speech where he tried to defend the hon. the Minister and I find it extraordinary. First of all the Prime Minister referred to the fact that the Police went to the Minister of Health and asked him whether he knew anything about the Bamzam Company and that the Minister quite rightly said that he had never heard of it, that he never was a director of it and had never anything to do with it. Thereafter the Police went once more to the hon. the Minister and put to the Minister the same questions but now in respect of Marendaz Diesels. In regard to this the Prime Minister said, “Once again the answer was the same”. Well, words must have meaning. The Prime Minister is usually very careful in choosing his words. He is a senior member of this House; indeed, he is the Prime Minister. Furthermore, he had a lot of time to think about this matter and to prepare his case. So, if words have any meaning, the hon. the Minister of Health said to the Police that he had never heard of Marendaz Diesels, that he never was a director of it and never had anything to do with it. It is not a question here of a slip of the tongue. This very point was again put to the Prime Minister by the Leader of the Opposition on the last day of that debate. The hon. the Prime Minister then sat back and said: “Read my Hansard”. Well, I have read the Prime Minister’s Hansard and that is what he said. Having prepared his case carefully, are we not entitled to assume that that is in fact what he meant?

It is quite clear; it is not even necessary to argue the matter. On the Minister’s own admission he applied for and received shares in the company. He said so himself. Therefore, it is unnecessary even to argue this. Sir, we do not need a committee, or a commission or any inquiry at all into this matter because here are the facts—all documented.

The strangest feature of this whole case is that the Minister himself has never admitted, never in fact used the words “I was not a director; I know nothing about it; I had no dealings with it …” That is what one would have expected. The Minister spoke after the Prime Minister tried to defend him and was at great pains not to say anything himself apart from saying that he associated himself with what the Prime Minister said—a remarkable state of affairs!

But the most remarkable of all happened last night. When the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) was dealing with the matter, the Minister of Health interjected “dit is skinderstories”. Thereupon the hon. member said—

To that the Minister replied: “omdat die Sunday Times by niemand tel nie.” Sir, the Sunday Times has a circulation of 450,000 and a readership of 2 million. And then we have the very fact that these things have been written. Here we have the measure of the concern of the Minister for his good name, and this is apparently the measure of concern for the good name of a Minister of State.

Let me remind the hon. the Prime Minister of his own dictum in matters such as these. When, earlier in the year, he dealt with the case of Mr. Haak, he said that he had full confidence in Mr. Haak not only as an able Minister but also in his integrity. He said that he had every confidence that Mr. Haak was no party to anything unworthy or improper. The Prime Minister continued—

This, then, is the dictum of the hon. the Prime Minister. Let him now apply that dictum to these facts. It cannot be questioned that if an hon. Minister makes a statement to this House which is not true, or to the Police which is not true, then that is an improper and unworthy act. The facts are there, and if the Minister stays on, the public might feel that they cannot have the same confidence in what Cabinete Ministers say in future. But worse still from the point of view of the hon. the Prime Minister, is the fact that people will be entitled to think that the hon. the Prime Minister is not concerned about the veracity and the integrity of his Ministers. I submit, in conclusion, that there has never been a clearer case than this. Here are all the documents and the Prime Minister has all the facts. In the circumstances I hope he will do the duty that is his towards the country.

The speech we have had to listen to for the last half-hour is adequate proof of the total bankruptcy as far as policy and a sense of positiveness on the part of the Opposition is concerned. We are approaching the end of what has been, to my mind, one of the most important sessions of Parliament. And yet, what is being dished up here? Gossip! To my mind this is sufficient proof that there is no basis of integrity whatsoever between the Government and the Opposition, no basis for liaison or for co-operation. This also brings to us proof of exploitation by a political anachronism, such as this country has never known before. This is further proof that we are dealing here with a party which is committing suicide and do you know, Mr. Speaker, we have just had a whiff in our nostrils now, and a whiff in the nostrils is usually the precursor of decay. Under the guidance of the Progressive English-language Press, that party is to-day being made up into a neat packet and it will in your time and mine be laid at the feet of the hon. member for Houghton in this House with the ironic statement “Allah, confirm to us the work of our hands”.

Sir, I said that we were dealing here with a political anachronism. We are dealing here with final proof of a total lack of a basis of integrity between the Government party and the United Party, and in addition we are dealing here with final proof of dissension in the soul of that party. There is a horizontal and a vertical red chalk mark running through their soul. On the one hand we get the Mitchell group as advocates of the concept of brute White supremacy. On the other hand we have the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is now condeding that homeland development may as well become part of their policy. He has now stopped protesting against the “fragmentation of this country”. But do you know, Sir, he is too scared to admit it. He came forward here with the clever suggestion that if the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister were to come to such a conclusion, his leader would be morally bound to abide by it. The corner is becoming too small and the anxiety is increasing. They must get out. They may not admit it, they cannot include it in their policy, they must remove it from the sphere of politics, and now they want to pass it on to the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister.

Sir, liaison between the Opposition and the governing party is necessary, but how are we going to achieve this? How are we going to remedy this tragic position? Only by informing the voters of South Africa and asking them to speak to their leaders in the House of Assembly so that they can muster their thoughts for a change. I do want to make this one concession to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He came forward this afternoon with an indication and proof that he has almost as much in his head as he has around his waist, because he is speaking of a subsequent policy, the policy of “communal councils”. We will probably get it in pamphlet form one of these days to distribute as voting fodder throughout the country—communal councils, an amendment of the homelands policy and the acceptance of border industries—it is coming. Sir, I come now to the integrity of the paragons of virtue on that side of the House, and I appreciate this opportunity at this stage of the session. I may as well begin right away. Mention was made here of integrity and of morality. What did we get in Randburg from the representatives of that side of the House? According to him a member of the National Party had become a Hertzogite; after the election he would walk over; he was a verkrampte. Do you know. Sir, the voters of Randburg are still waiting for that to happen? The voters of Randburg are now putting this question to the United Party; When is it going to happen? You promised it, and undertook that it would happen. The United Party representative in that election campaign, what did he do in that petition of his? He made fraudulent allegations. He committed political treason. [Interjections].

On a point of order, Sir, as far as I know the hon. member has lodged an appeal in that case; is it not sub judice now?

Not in regard to that part of the case; only in regard to the cost aspect. The contrary of the statement of that hon. representative—not, not “honourable” —of the United Party was proved to the hilt through the submission of sworn statements, and when he saw that he was going to run into trouble, he withdrew that allegation in the Supreme Court, after he had had all the benefit of newspaper publicity and after he had created an atmosphere of deceit. Sir, this is proof of the integrity and the manliness of representatives of that side of the House. But I shall go further. They cannot say that they did not know that their man would leave them in the lurch. The United Party caucus of the City Council of Johannesburg knew Mr. Horace van Rensburg very well for was he not, according to their United Party norms, suspended by them for six weeks and prohibited to speak in the City Council of Johannesburg because he had called my hon. Prime Minister a “bloody fool”? Sir, is that integrity; is that the image which is to be created of politics in South Africa? It is hypocrisy. Believe me, Sir, the voters of Randburg deserve better than that.

We shall see in October.

We are definitely going to see in October. So much for the integrity and the irreproachableness of that side of the House. Here we have further proof of their bankruptcy in originality. This is advice they received from professional advisers; “Launch gossip-mongering campaigns; disparage the leaders and sow confusion by lack of an alternative policy. You have lost; you have no policy; you have nothing to offer, so make use of these means”. Sir, this is a tragic day in the politics of South Africa. But an Opposition party has never gossiped itself into office. Many have gossiped themselves out of office and many have gossiped themselves into oblivion. We are dealing with a cultivated, ethical electorate in South Africa and they will pronounce judgment on tactics of this kind and the behaviour of that side.

Sir, I want to recommend to the hon. members that instead of making use of professional advice which they received from distant countries, they should rather hold symposiums with our Bantu leaders in this country, Bantu leaders who have expressed a final unequivocal judgment on their own level-headedness sobriety, their views, their feelings and their duty to their fatherland.

The Minister will not allow it.

That is not true; I corrected that in the debate.

Sir, this is the arrant nonsense that member usually speaks here. I begin with the leaders of the Ovambos and I am quoting from this morning’s Burger—

Strong indignation at the interference of President Kaunda of Zambia in the “peoples of South West” was expressed yesterday evening by Chief Ushona Shiimi, chief councillor of the Executive Council of the Ovamboland Legislative Council.

He is probably another “stooge” now.

The report goes on to say—

The United Party say: “You must not choose; you are one of us; you may not think of separate development”—

That is what Gen. Smuts said.

This is their own choice of their own free will. Gen Smuts and you say they are part of 20 million people who must subsequently obtain citizenship and the franchise, and so that a Black Prime Minister can take office in this House of Assembly. This is further proof of integrity. He went on to say—

Have we ever heard anything like that being said on that side of the House? That side of the House must effect a little liaison with the people for whom they want to buy security. They are level-headed; they have already decided. They could serve as an edifying example to you. What does the Tswana chief, tribal chief Lucas Mangope say? He says that his blood boils when he hears talk of people in the Africa countries wanting to come and liberate the black people of South Africa. In addition to that he said—

Chief Kaiser Matanzima once said to the world: If you think to commit an act of aggression against the Republic and you think you will find us passive bystanders, you are making a mistake. Chief Jonathan said that he was opposed to Communism and that he would tolerate no terrorism or afford it any protection if it was aimed at the Republic of South Africa. That side of the House is saying that the idea of separate development has failed. Living leaders of the Bantu nation bring confirmation that it has succeeded. It is no longer necessary for us to proclaim it from these benches only. It is being proclaimed from the four corners of the Republic of South Africa by the Blacks themselves. Where does the United Party fit in? They want to sow confusion and place obstacles in the way. They want to Europeanize the Bantu, they want to mislead them through flattery. And the Blacks say to them: “We do not want to be Whites”. It is not only in the National section of the population where one finds this standpoint, but also among the United Party people. The recently established South African Students’ Organization, the organization of non-White students, was established to break away from Nusas because they felt that as a minority in Nusas they are being neglected. They wanted to represent themselves, and this Nusas is after all a kind of junior United Party. What do the Bantu say about them? Never before was an Opposition Party in this country so far off course as regards the requirements of the time and level-headed thinking about it. Any national leader and any governing group must at least have this talent and skill, i.e. to interpret the requirements of their time correctly and then to go to the people and to say: Here are the requirements, this is the road and here are the means. How brilliantly has my party not succeeded in doing so during the past twenty years.

Another fellow who is seeing distant vistas.

I can just say that the hide of the one on that side of the House who is seeing distant vistas is hanging behind my study door. I shall return it to him so that he can play on it with his magic potions and knuckle bones. I dealt with him a long time ago.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following in Hansard, column 4216, after a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the combating of Communism—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that they agreed. This is one of the rare examples where there is still a basis for co-operation with the United Party, apart from the question of the World Council of Churches in regard to which the third party also agreed, which is quite encouraging. I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this. But what does his party say? I have said that they are an anachronism, a contradiction; they are out of step with the times. Hon. members must really not laugh at me now, because it is the truth; the hon. member for Durban (Point) said the following at Lichtenburg on 19th March—

Quote what I said!

That member, too, could to good effect …

Quote what I said!

That hon. member, too, could with good results seek liaison with Chiefs Jonathan and Kaizer Matanzima. He would then become level-headed and would play into the hands of the enemies of our country less often. Not only does he differ with his leader, he also differs with his own Press. In The Star of the same day, namely 19th March, I read—

That is what his Press is saying, that is what his party is saying and that is what the Bantu leaders in this country are saying to him. No, but the great king, Vause Raw, says it is nonsense. He says communistic danger is merely an intimidatory story.

Now we come to the hon. member for Hillbrow and to the hon. member for Yeoville who waxed lyrical here about the decentralization of industries. They came forward here with the statement that this was not decentralization of industries at all, and that it was not border industries at all, but that we were taking the industries to the borders and then taking the Bantu along, and in this way trying to bluff them and the public.

That is Jan Moolman’s story.

No, it is the story of the hon. member for Hillbrow, alias Madame Rose. I have here in my hand an article which appeared on the 9th August 1970. This furnishes us with the following particulars, and I quote—

Who said that?

The person who said this is the managing director of Veka, Mr. Truter, and representatives of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut.

Do you think he is completely unbiased?

Yes, he is completely unbiased, and the statistics prove this. Here are the statistics. I quote further—

Then he asks the question—

This is no figment of the imagination; this is not an ideology, this is a fact which speaks for itself. I quote further—

We are making progress, despite the intimidatory stories and the unlevelheadedness of the party on that side. Mr. Speaker, we find that we are dealing here with a party which are trying to force themselves as a square peg into a round hole. The voters are going to extricate them. They themselves, as well as the public, are disappointed. The United Party simply cannot succeed any more in conveying their idea to the public as a creditable one. They are out of step.

That is probably the reason for your decreased majority.

My majority decreased by quite a few thousand, but I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that he has not had an influx of 9,000 in three years. I took him on, and I won. He simply had a “deflux” and then he comes here with his hollow clamour. We shall take the seat again, influx or no influx, particularly with a representative as they have there now. The educated English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking voters of Randburg will themselves take steps in this case.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with a party which is disappearing. We are dealing here with a party which has no message. We are dealing here with a party which, in a very tragic way, is committing suicide. We are dealing here with a party which is decaying. I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton, she need not be overjoyed if the Progressive press lays this neatly made up parcel of the former United Party at her feet with the cry “Allah, confirm the work of our hands!” because by that time it will already be dead.

Mr. Speaker, seldom in my life have I listened to more abusive language than now. We heard here about gossiping, no basis of integrity and no morality on the part of the United Party. Why? For the simple reason that the hon. member for Durban (North) only did his duty. Do hon. members think it was in any way pleasant for the member for Durban (North) to do this? But it was his duty, because the dignity of this House and of South Africa is more important than a person.

The hon. member for Piketberg to-day again attacked the hon. member for Newton Park and said that he had gone around gossiping about the Land Bank.

He did.

What is the policy of the Land Bank? The policy of the Land Bank was set out at Worcester by the chairman of the Bank as follows (translation)—

If there are people who get bonds of R450,000, if millionaires get bonds, must this side of the House remain silent? Surely it is the duty of this side of the House, and it had nothing to do with the fact that it was the father of the son-in-law of the Prime Minister. It did not matter whether it was his grandfather; it was the principle involved. Let me now say that this side of the House will act as the watchdog over the interests of the voters of South Africa, regardless of who gets hurt in the process and regardless of how much inconvenience it causes that side of this House.

The hon. member for Randburg went further and said that this party was divided in its soul, but what have we seen in this House in recent times? Yesterday we had the spectacle when the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs put his standpoint. He never committed himself to a policy. What he did at least make clear was that there should be good relations with the Coloured people. He made it clear that he rejected separate Coloured homelands. He said that the road we were following was the road of concord. In other words, our interests are interwoven.

You do not know what you are talking about.

We on this side of the House appreciated it, because it is the right course of action. Most hon. members, apart from that “verkrampte” member, agree with it. Sir, what did we hear from the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in this regard? He said that we did not want to share our independence with the Coloured people. Is this not an example of division? And while we are talking about division, what about the hon. the Minister of Information? He said at Empangeni that the Prime Minister had not said that Maori’s could come, nor that they could not come. He would first take a look at the team before taking a decision. The Minister also said there that separate homelands for the Coloured people were not excluded.

I say so again.

What did the Minister of Coloured Affairs say? Then they talk about division! We also had the example of the Minister of Finance, who said that he would grant the industrialists the opportunity of having a dialogue. If he then saw their point of view in regard to border industries, he would adopt a sympathetic approach to their case as far as labour was concerned. His words were scarcely cold when the hon. the Minister of Labour, under the guidance of the hon. member for Brakpan, said that no concessions would be granted. Is this division? So much has been said about the challenges of the 1970s, but is this how we are to meet the 1970s? There is not even clarity among Cabinet Ministers of the Nationalist Party. If they do not have unity in regard to their policy and if members of the Nationalist Party do not have unity, how must the people have unity? How must we know what course we are to follow in the 1970s?

We have heard a great deal about the challenges of the 1970s and about how the Prime Minister would face them. We heard how the Prime Minister would be doing some overhauling after the election. Sir, what overhauling has been done? What has been done in order to solve the problems of the ordinary man in the street? Nothing. All the Nationalist Party did was to send two organizers overseas in order to study election methods, because elections are apparently more important than the problems of the people of South Africa. Sir, the problems are not overseas. Those people should not have been sent overseas. The problems are here inside the Prime Minister’s own Cabinet. Then the Nationalist Party appointed a certain Mr. Rezelman. who must now improve the image of the Nationalist Party. He must sell the policy of the Nationalist Party. Then we heard from the hon. the Minister of Information the other day that the Nationalist Party’s policy was State policy. For that reason, he saw his way clear to using almost R2 million of the taxpayers’ money in South Africa in order to propagate the Nationalist Party’s propaganda.

That is a lie … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw, but this is really an untruth. I made the position very clear.

The hon. the Minister explained that the policy of the Nationalist Party was Government policy or State policy. They are now doing what has never been done before, and that is to use money for the purpose of propagating that State policy within this country itself.

Only the other day the Nationalist Party’s newspapers told us that we would never be able to have television in South Africa. They said that if we were to have television, the Nationalist Party newspapers would go under and if the Nationalist Party newspapers went under, the Nationalist Party itself would go under. In other words, that whole party is dependent on propaganda in order to keep the people in the dark. It is not concerned about the problems of the people of South Africa, but only with serving the Nationalist Party.

The hon. member for Paarl mentioned the good account which the Nationalist Party Ministers had given in this House of their tasks. But what did we hear? In every Department of every Minister we heard about shortages. There are shortages of telephones, railway trucks and houses. And then their excuse was that the country had been growing too rapidly. Yes, Sir the country has grown too rapidly. South Africa has grown rapidly as a result of the initiative of the industrialists of South Africa and the workers and people of South Africa. This is the position in spite of this Government and not as a result of this Government. Every Department in which this Government has a hand has not been able to grow with South Africa. Is this the way in which the Nationalist Party wants to meet the problems of the 1970s?

But what have we seen in this House? In contrast to this lack of policy and incompetence, the Leader of the United Party forcefully, dynamically and squarely faced up to the problems of the 1970s. He clearly and unambiguously outlined the course to be followed in the 1970s, i.e. to make South Africa economically strong and to develop it economically so that it will be one of the ten economically strongest countries in the world at the end of this century. He said that this could be done by increasing the growth rate of the economy to 10 per cent, and not by pegging it at 5½ per cent, as this Government wants to do.

Mr. Speaker, may an hon. member clap hands at his own speech? [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall prove what this would mean to the people of South Africa. Calculated on the basis of the present national income of South Africa of R11,000 million, the amount will, under a Nationalist Party régime and at a growth rate of 5½ per cent, reach R35,000 million at the end of the century. But under a United Party régime and at a growth rate of 10 per cent, the amount will reach R86,000 million. Why should we not become one of the ten strongest countriese in the world? What does the Nationalist Party have against that? Why do they not want that growth? After all, we have the necessary factors in South Africa in order to have that growth. We have all the natural resources. We have factors which not even Japan has, and to-day Japan is the third largest industrial country in the world. I think it must be heart-rending for everyone in this House and in South Africa to think that our natural raw matereials and resources, such as iron ore, must be exported to Japan in order to square the trade balance of an incompetent government, while we have a shortage of steel in this country and while we have the possibility to process that steel.

Who established Iscor?

The next requirement is capital, and South Africa has all the capital which it needs, so much so that on 18th June last year the Minister of Finance said here that we have so much capital that we must export it; capital must leave the country because there is too much here. The third requirement is labour, and we have all the labour we want in South Africa, all the unskilled labour. All we do not have enough of, is skilled labour, and this is also because of the Nationalist Party, because it is the Nationalist Party which destroyed the immigration policy of Gen. Smuts and it is the Nationalist Party which neglected and is still neglecting the training of our children.

Are you opposed to the export of wool to Japan?

No, because I am not ridiculous. Surely the hon. the Minister should not make himself appear stupid. If we can process steel here, it does not mean that we can process wool, but the United Party will solve this as well; it will solve the labout problem as well. We shall obtain more trained labour by means of a more purposeful immigration policy. We shall not peg the immigration effort as the Minister of Immigration does, in that he said yesterday that he did not want more than 13,000 to 14,000 workers. [Interjection.] The second point is that the United Party will provide free university training to all needy white children who have the capacity for it.

Koos Promise.

The hon. member says that we make promises, but why can we not do this? Why may the children of South Africa not be trained?

Of course you can make promises, because you will never have to fulfil them.

But what is the objection to it? Is it money, or the cost involved? Because if it is the cost, I just want to remind him that when we asked the Minister of Bantu Administration what this Native policy would cost, he said, “It does not matter”. But it does matter when the children of South Africa have to be trained; then they cannot find the money. In addition, we shall train and retrain the older workers of South Africa. We shall introduce short courses in order to elevate them and to provide them with better positions, and as we give them better positions, as they move up the ladder, we shall fill those vacancies with non-white workers, and in this way we shall raise the standard of living of our entire population and achieve prosperity for our entire population. We shall achieve security for the entire population, because we know that the country with the greatest economic strength is the country with the greatest military strength. If your country is economically powerful, you can withstand boycotts. Who will dare to boycott Japan or America? We can solve all our problems if we follow the leadership provided by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. All we need in order to put this plan into operation, is a change of Government. But what hope do we have under the Nationalist Government? How are we to enter the 1970s under the Nationalist Party, a party which wants to retard the economic development and the growth rate of South Africa, and which wants to peg the growth rate at 5½ per cent? As the hon. the Minister of Finance said, “Rather a poor country, but a white country”. But little does the Minister realize that if the white man is to retain his position in South Africa, he must first be made economically strong. The hon. member for Paarl quoted figures and said that the faster we grow, the faster inflation would increase and therefore we should not grow, otherwise inflation would become too high. For years and years we have been hearing this inflation story, that there is too much money for too few goods. Sir, if there is too much money for too few goods, then there eare two courses open. The course of the United Party is to increase the goods by producing more. But what is the policy of the Nationalist Party? It is to withdraw the money from the people of South Africa; in other words, to impoverish the people. Thus the people have, economically speaking, been crushed by the Government in ‘the past five years, because what steps have they taken?

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member says that I am talking nonsense. Let us argue the matter out. What was the first step which they took? They restricted bank credit, then they increased taxation, and then they increased interest rates—everything in order to combat inflation. Every method was tried in order to withdraw the money from the people, in order to impoverish the people, because the argument was that if the money was withdrawn, there would be less buying power and this would bring down the cost of living and reduce inflation. But what has happened after five years? Has inflation been reduced? It was 2 per cent from 1960 to 1965. From 1965 to 1969 it was 3.6 per cent. This year it was 4 per cent and next year it is going to be 5 per cent, and I think the hon. the Minister agreed with that. In other words, the rate of inflation has not been checked, but the people of South Africa have been impoverished by this Government. The entire farming population has been ruined by these measures and by the actions of that hon. Minister of Agriculture. These plans could never have succeeded, because how can one combat inflation by restricting bank credit? Because if one restricts bank credit, one prevents the industrialist from expanding and he will produce less, so that fewer goods will appear on the market, the goods will become more expensive and this will increase the cost of living, and if the cost of living increases, the worker will demand higher wages and then the Government will grant higher wages and then one will have less productivity and greater inflation. This is what has happened in the past years. The same applies to taxes. How can one combat inflation by increasing inflation? Because taxation is the largest single factor which increases the cost of living and if one increases the cost of living, the workers demand higher wages and then one gets inflation. The same position applies to interest rates. How can one combat inflation by increasing interest rates when every farmer has a bond on his farm and every home-owner a bond on his house? If one increases the interest rates, one surely increases his cost of living and one makes it impossible for him to live. How can one reduce the cost of living by increasing interest rates, thus enriching the rich man, who receives those interest rates, and impoverishing the poor man who has to pay that interest? And this has been the policy of this Government. This process has been repeated every time until we have the position to-day that the rate of inflation will be 5 per cent next year. On 18th June last year the Minister of Finance gave this country its final economic knock-out blow when he said that he was going to lift exchange control and that we should send the money out, that we should get rid of the money. What happened? The next day, the Stock Market collapsed and that bit of fun and games cost the investors of South Africa, the small investors, R1,800 million. This is what it cost the small investors, and when he had completed this, what did the Minister of Finance say? He said that he had issued warnings and that it was in any case the typists and the clerks who had lost their money and that they should never have invested in the Stock Exchange. The typists and the clerks should not have invested in the Stock Exchange; that privilege was reserved for the capitalists.

Ask the hon. member for Brits how much he lost.

On 18th August, after the entire Stock Exchange had collapsed, what did the Minister of Finance do? He restored exchange control; he reversed the whole policy. No wonder that the Stock Exchange correspondent of Die Beeld referred on 9th October, 1969, to the Stock Exchange being strangled. He referred to the success which the Government had had in strangling our economy and said that “the economic policy is too negative; perhaps one should call it ‘verkramp’ ”. Then a man like Dr. Hupkes said—

For the information of the hon. member for Paarl—

An economist like Mr. Jan Marais said on 18th September, 1960—

Sir, is this how we are to enter the 1970s, with an economy which has retarded the economic growth of South Africa, and which holds no hope for the ordinary man? Must we enter the 1970s without houses, without money, without telephones, without television? Must we enter the 1970s as an impoverished country?

What is the view of the hon. the Prime Minister and that side of this House in regard to national unity, one of the most important matters in the 1970s? In the past election the Prime Minister stated his policy in regard to national unity. In his speech at Heilbron, he said that he stood for co-operation with the English-speaking people, provided that he did not have to forfeit one iota of his Afrikaner identity. He said that he expected co-operation from the English-speaking people, but that they need not forfeit any of their English identity. Sir, surely this is co-operation; surely it is not national unity. One will then forever have two races in one country each of which will fight for the control of the steering wheel in South Africa. [Interjection.] I shall tell the hon. the Minister how I want it. I shall tell him what my father taught me.

He taught you badly.

I came from an Afrikaner home which is just as old and just as proud as that of that hon. Minister or the Prime Minister or any Nationalist. He taught me that I should make the sacrifice; that I should be prepared to give up my Afrikaner nationhood … [Interejctions] … and only then could I expect that my English-speaking fellow-citizen would give up his English identity, or do hon. members on that side want Englishmen in this country? Sir, all of them are prepared to do this. If this is done, we shall be forged and united into something greater, into a South African nation, as was envisaged by Jan Smuts and Louis Botha.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member what part of his Afrikanership he wants to give up?

I want to be a South African. I want to give up the “verkramptheid” of that side of this House which established Rapportryer corps which do not allow an English-speaking person to belong to them, and which establishes Broederbond organizations which in turn strive to establish a super-Afrikaner organization.

Is that all you want to give up?

No, wait a minute, I have already replied to the hon. the Minister’s question. My time is very limited.

I said a South African nation based on two languages and two cultures. The two languages do not detract from each other, nor do the two cultures detract from each other. They supplement each other; they enrich each other. That is why we find sitting on this side of the House the Bill Suttons, the Jack Bassons, the Douglas Mitchells, the Tony Hickmans and the Japie Bassons. These people are sitting together in the United Party … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, how does one reply to the poor in spirit? It is simply amazing that the hon. member for King William’s Town can come to this House and choose to model his manper of debating—and he did not have a very wide choice amongst all the United Party members—on that of Jack Basson! The hon. member told this House that he is prepared to give up his identity completely. But in the very next breath he says that the two cultures enricheach other. He destroys his own culture and then says that he is thereby enriching the other culture. But that is typical of the United Party stories that were doing the rounds around in Klip River. We all read the stories of the United Party candidate there. I do not know whether it is permissible to say it in this House, but outside we would have said one could not find a greater sourmouth (bitterbek)] a real Boer hater.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may an hon. member refer to an hon. member of the Other Place as a sourmouth?

Order! Was the hon. member referring to an hon. member of the Other Place?

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to a United Party candidate.

Order! Yes, but that candidate is still an hon. member of the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, they probably appointed him.

The hon. member must withdraw that reflection on a member of the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, what reflection was it?

A sourmouth and a Boer hater.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member was referring to a candidate in the Klip River constituency. What he said related to that and not to the hon. Senator as such.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood you to indicate to the hon. member that he had to withdraw his remark. I want to ask you, Sir, to enforce your ruling.

Order! I do not require the advice which the hon. member has just given.

*I think it would be better if the hon. member for Fauresmith withdrew those words, because although the hon. Senator was a candidate in an election, he is nevertheless a member of the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my words.

The hon. candidate’s daughter and his wife expressed themselves in public on the day the result was announced. I now want the hon. member for King William’s Town to listen to what the wife and daughter of one of the “hand-picked men” of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in public. That is the woman who sped at 80 miles an hour to fetch her son at the unilingual English-language school, Michaelhouse, so that he could come and share in the United Party’s festivities at their expected victory, which in the end turned out to be a humiliating defeat. She had the following to say when she heard the result: “No, do we again have to be governed by Nationalist scum?” That is the co-operation we are getting.

Do you mean to say you believe that?

I believe it, and there is no doubt about that. Why should I not believe it. if the reports come from the United Party candidate himself, or from the, as I now must say, hon. Redi Louw. I shall quote to hon. members from the Natal Mercury of 3rd September, 1970. Hon. members must remember that the member for Klip River was at that stage a seriously ill man, who was lying in hospital. At that stage that United Party candidate came along and said the following—

That is the way they go to work. They challenge a man who is lying in hospital. I quote further—

That is the level to which these hon. members have sunk. One must then still bear in mind that this was one of these “hand-picked men” of the Leader of the Opposition. The Broederbond is not at issue, but I am going to tell hon. members what the issue is. How it became known, I do not know, but I accept that the hon. the Deputy Minister admitted it himself, but because he is a member of the Broederbond those hon. members say that he has cheated the English-speaking people. If there has ever been a testimonial for the Broederbond, with the best intentions at his command, then it is the membership of Theo Gerdener in respect of an organization such as the Broederbond. Mr. Speaker, those members—I regret that the hon. member for Wynberg is not present—preached racial hatred from beginning to end. I regret the fact that the United Party candidate is not here to defend himself. At Bergville a friend stood up and asked the candidate whether the Moths was a political organization. “No,” says Mr. Henderson “it is not a political organization. I myself am a member.” He fixed his gaze on him and asked: “Then why did you call me a disgrace to the Moths because I am a Nationalist?” Thereupon the hon. gentleman did not deny this. He said it was a private occasion. He replied: “But then why at the Moth meeting did you call the Prime Minister a bloody bastard?” Thereafter the United Party candidate, of course, took the loudspeaker and shouted the whole lot down. That is the way they carried on. And in addition they gossiped from beginning to end. The hon. member for Wynberg was one of them. She finally said, “Here is a real saucy one for you.” What did she do then? She told how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition argued himself into a corner about the Agliotti affair. She told the Klip River voters again how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said that that land was offered to the State. You have never in your life seen a more typically vulturous party! They just scavenge on gossip as far as they possibly can.

The only way the Sunday Times could iron out all these stories was by saying, “Yes, with the verligte Mr. Gerdener they sent all the verkramptes to hold meetings there.” All the verkramptes? The Minister of Agriculture, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, the Minister of Community Development? Is the Minister of Community Development a verkrampte? He is so verlig that one has to put a shade around him! But we know this story of the hon. member for King William’s Town. These are not old stories. We expected them to come. Senators have also spoken about that. They do not want to be Afrikaners. I quote from the Senate Hansard of 7th October, 1966, what a senator said who went to work for the United Party at Klip River. He said (column 1116)—

And he is bilingual as well! —

That is the way those hon. members carry on. If one now looks at this booklet of theirs, “You want it, we have it,” one reads: “We accept the Republic as an accomplished fact.” After ten years they write that they now accept it. What happened to the hon. Leader in Natal, who wanted to “march” out of Natal? He was conspicuously absent in this debate. Are they people who want to work together for one culture and who are going to relinquish theirs? The hon. member for King William’s Town has already relinquished everything. He is nothing but a United Party member. [Interjections.] Sir, I shall go further. Right at the back of this little booklet of theirs those hon. members write: “We accept one loyalty.” They now only have one loyalty, and that is to South Africa. What was your attitude, and that of your party, when the Citizenship Act was discussed in this House? Did your party …

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, through you I want to ask that hon. member for East London (North), who waxed so eloquent, what his party’s attitude was when the question of one citizenship was put to the Vote in this House? Did they want one citizenship, or did the hon. member and his party also still want to be citizens of a foreign country? Was it not those hon. members who at a certain stage did not want to take the oath of allegiance to the Republic? Was it not that hon. member who wrote a letter to a good English friend in Natal in which he said that he was a “disgrace” to the English-speaking people because he joined the National Party? Those hon. members are now sitting there so sacrosanctly, but what was their attitude when a previous member of the House, Mr. Arthur Barlow, suggested that there should be only one National Anthem and one flag? Now they accept it, but what did they do at the time? They got rid of Arthur Barlow. What was the attitude of those hon. members in Natal when the House decided on one flag? They voted against it, and for quite a few years afterwards the Union Jack flapped alongside our flag in Natal. Then those hon. members want to come and tell us that they support one loyalty. Sir, I am sorry that I have devoted so much time to these matters, but the hon. member upset me very much by carrying on in this vein.

There are a few other statements that have already been made on various occasions by hon. members on that side of the House. Last night, when this debate began, the main speaker on Finance on the Opposition side once more said something in this vein. Incidentally, I want to say that I am glad that hon. member was not here to-day to listen to the arguments on economics by the hon. member for King William’s Town. I have previously seen him laugh at the hon. member for East London (City). To-day he would have hidden his head under the bench. Hon. members have repeated, on several occasions, what the hon. member for Hillbrow has also said, that by March of next year we shall be seeing such a cruel Budget. That is not a matter that can simply be allowed to pass unchecked like that. It is, of course, a story that is expressly being propagated with a view to the provincial election. What are the actual facts? The facts and one of the biggest bottlenecks, in the economy at this stage, is that the total local consumer spending increased in the past year by no less than 17 per cent. If that is the position, then I want to say that that consumer spending increased in the past year by double the amount of any other year. The average for the past ten years was about 8 per cent. This had a few repercussions, i.e. that the prices of goods and services increased considerably. This resulted further in our imports increasing sharply. Most important of all is that it resulted in personal savings decreasing markedly, to such an extent that the percentage of personal savings, in relation to personal income, decreased to 6 per cent, while in the previous years it was 10 per cent. In other words, this simply means that our people are spending too much. They went on a “spending spree”. The position is simply that our people buy anything. I can see no reason why one has to buy Italian shoes for an ounce of fine gold or 35 dollars. That is what they cost to-day.

There are two ways of restricting this problem. The first is by means of import control. As soon as we begin with import control, we experience problems with G.A.T.T. The other possibility is that our people should spend less and save more. However, if the hon. the Minister of Finance appeals to the public to save more and spend less, these hon. members make a ludicrous story of it. They do not believe it. The reason why people spend so much is because they have too much money. If people then continue to spend so much, there are two ways of getting rid of the money. The one way is voluntary saving. In order to help bring about that voluntary saving, the hon. the Minister of Finance made announcements in his Budget speech about considerable relief, as far as taxation was concerned, for people who wanted to invest money in the building societies. They can invest considerably more than last year at a tax-free dividend or interest rate. Unless particularly strict import control is applied, which does not appear possible in my opinion, because of our international restrictions, the only other alternative, when people do not want to invest their money in provident funds, is to take the excess money out of the hands of the public by means of taxes, saving or in some other way. But the solution to the problem is expressly in the hands of the public, and instead of that side of the House assisting the hon. the Minister of Finance, they are making a joke of the entire matter. That is the problem, but I do not think that we can merely leave this story about such a terrible future Budget at that.

In the few minutes I have left I must just say a few words about the labour problem Here I have the Business Times of July 1970—

That is a report emanating from Cologne in Germany: “Europe’s manpower crisis seems every bit as acute as South Africa’s”. Surely the people are exaggerating this matter as much as they possibly can in order to steal a march on someone, and I do not know who, because I do not think that any informed person will allow himself to be caught out like this. But stealing a march is not such a simple matter. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to establish a “crash programme”. All that will happen to that “crash programme” is that he himself will crash, if he has not already crashed. Now he tells us here to-day that they are going to give the white worker better protection. How? That remains the question. Tell us how? He simply keeps to generalities. The reason he advances is that we have so much confidence in the leadership of the white man that he will remain on top. But a moment ago the hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) told us what he thinks of leadership, and I repeat what he said in column 6038 of 18th May, 1959—

The Leader of the Opposition categorically declares that restrictive legislation, as they call it, will never be the solution, but he says they will give the white worker greater protection. Does he then want the white worker to accept his word? Why would he accept it? Oh, I could quote you a great deal of this stuff. And did he not say that the Coloured people should be restored to the same voters’ roll? It was said repeatedly, and the hon. member for Yeoville confirmed it; in fact, one day they agreed with Mr. Abe Bloomberg, the former member for Peninsula, and just the following day they made a different suggestion. They were then sitting here in Committee, unaware that their congress had decided otherwise. Sir, how can the people accept such words of trust? I want to tell the Opposition, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself, that it is high time for them to begin designing a new policy. I think, in fact, that a new policy is already in preparation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has been preparing a new policy for a long time. The Leader of the Opposition himself has begun to think that it would not be such a bad idea if the Economic Advisory Council could possibly suggest something to him as well. But, Madame Rose, the hon. member for Hillbrow, will have to look into the crystal ball to see what U.P. policy the future holds. Hon. members of the Opposition will have to watch out, because the hon. the Prime Minister has announced that if one of the non-white peoples wants to come and speak to him about independence he is prepared to talk to them. And if in the next five years any of those non-white peoples gain independence the Opposition’s policy will be left dangling even more than it is at present; then they will have passed the “point of no return” not knowing which way to turn. They do not know in any case.

Sir, in so far as the hon. member for Fauresmith amused the Committee, I do not think there can be any objection to his speech. What does amaze one, however, is that after all the complaints against members of this side about so-called gossip-mongering stories and speeches, the hon. member came forward with such a speech on that side. That really is the limit. My information in connection with Klip River is that after the election, Mr. Gerdener, issued a statement in which he said that it had been a clean fight and that the United Party candidate had contributed his full share to that.

He said that as a gentleman.

Sir, the hon. member for King William’s Town is a new member and he made a good political speech but he exposed himself to being badly misunderstood.

Do you want to help him now?

I want to make it very clear that the United Party asks of no one to give up any of his Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking cultural personality; it asks this of no one who wants to be a member of the United Party; if this were the case, I would not be sitting on this side of the House. Whether people are Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking, they are equal South Africans in our eyes. Throughout my political career I personally have fought for equality, for equivalence as South Africans, and for co-operation between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. But I want to say here that I am not prepared to give up one single facet of my Afrikaans cultural personality, and those who do not want to co-operate on this basis, need not do so. They must co-operate with me as I am, and this, I want to emphasize, is the standpoint of the United Party.

Sir, towards the end of the discussion on his Vote, the hon. the Prime Minister started taking notice of the proposal which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had made to him in connection with Bantu homelands. I called it a challenge. The hon. the Prime Minister said that it could also be regarded as an invitation. I do not think this changes the matter to any great extent. I rather took it amiss of the hon. the Prime Minister that he raised the matter when it was no longer possible for us to reply. It is not satisfactory that one has to reply by way of interjections across the floor of the House. Be that as it may, I would have thought poorly of the hon. the Prime Minister if he had not reacted at all to what was intended as a serious proposal by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to explain our position, because it again appeared this afternoon, for example from the speech of the hon. member for Randburg, that there is some misunderstanding. I am sorry to say, in addition, that the propagandists of the Government are trying to hold up a certain image of the United Party, and when the facts do not happen to correspond with that image, they conveniently forget about the facts and continue holding up their image of the United Party. For example, the Prime Minister pretended that the United Party’s acceptance of the guide-lines laid down in the report of the Tomlinson Commission was something new, but what are the facts? What are the ascertainable facts? Shortly after the publication of the report of the Tomlinson Commission, the party issued a statement in pamphlet form through its information office.

Where were you at the time?

The relevant part of that—I have the English version here— read as follows—

I want to emphasize this; the first step in the implementation of the party’s federation plan—

Is that why you then joined them?

Sir, I am deliberately going as far back as this, in order to prove to the hon. the Prime Minister that this is nothing new. It was officially placed on record after the publication of the Tomlinson report and it has been repeated over and over again in this House. The United Party therefore officially accepted the guidelines, the broad principles, of the Tomlinson Commission’s report, and did so shortly after the report was published. But, in addition, at the general election of 1961, nine years ago, the party reaffirmed this standpoint in its election manifesto under the heading “Development of the Bantu areas”.

Which party?

The United Party. The party declared in that—

This too has been quoted here repeatedly. In the same election manifesto and in subsequent speeches and interviews, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition left no doubt about the nature of both the economic and the political development which the party envisaged for the Bantu areas. The Tomlinson Commission laid down as an absolute requirement that, if its proposals were to meet with any success, the main economic development would have to take place within the Bantu areas and not only through the State, but also through white private entrepreneurs from South Africa and from overseas who would have to be found to promote that development within the Bantu areas in terms of the rules of our capital system. The United Party fully accepted that aspect of the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission and it is in fact the only party which accepted that cardinal point in the report of the Tomlinson Commission, and it is to-day still the greatest weakness of the Government party and its programme that it rejected and still rejects this cardinal requirement of the Tomlinson Commission.

If that is so, surely you have rejected it too?

The hon. the Prime Minister ought to know better. I served on the executive of Sabra. As a member of the Parliamentary Committee of Sabra I, together with Mr. De Wet Nel, consistently pleaded with the Government that the recommendation of the Tomlinson Commission should be accepted. I attended one interview after another with Dr. Verwoerd about that.

And you accepted it.

I have never accepted anything else than the recommendation of the Tomlinson Commission. What is more, before the Government accepts it, very little will come of the development of the Bantu areas. Dr. Anton Rupert has proved that private white entrepreneurship in Lesotho can assist with development without its having to affect the essential basic rights of the Bantu. I think the activities of Dr. Rupert, who is assisting in the development of that territory with South African initiative, have the approval of the hon. the Prime Minister. We grant Lesotho all the possible development it can achieve. But it is the height of shortsightedness that a white South African entrepreneur can invest on a capitalistic basis in Lesotho or in Swaziland and help them to develop, but is not allowed to do so in our own Bantu areas. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister pertinently to explain this inconsistency to us. This is therefore the Opposition’s standpoint as far as economic development is concerned.

The party has been just as outspoken about the political development. It has been stated repeatedly here and outside by the Leader and other speakers of the party that the areas should be developed to the maximum autonomy which each area can achieve. Surely it cannot be put more clearly than that. In 1966, for example, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in the Sunday Express of 11th December—

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I should like to finish before half past six and my time is too limited. If the hon. member puts the question to me in writing, I shall reply to it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

With as the ultimate object an appropriate federal association which will be based on consultation and agreement with one another according to the development and circumstances of each territory. It must be clear to everyone who is interested in the facts of the matter that the whole point of departure of the United Party in respect of the relationship between white and black in South Africa is one of decentralization of political power as far as it is practicable. Any other representation of this matter is not in accordance with the facts. I am prepared to concede that decentralization of political power between white and black is also basic to the policy of the Government. There is therefore a certain consensus of opinion on the question of basic principle. There is in fact a very broad consensus in South Africa, but there is also a very clear difference between the two sides. The differences are higher up. The Government is ideologically orientated. That is why it speaks of absolute and total physical and geographical separation. All Blacks will have to withdraw to areas which will be set up as sovereign independent states; but not even a part of the population which will be in those areas will be able to lead a decent existence. Our approach is idealistic enough, but it is far more practically orientated, because we realize that the history, the geography and the economy of South Africa and the distribution of its natural resources have joined in bringing about a certain inter-dependence among the various population groups. This cannot be wished away. This also makes the absolute policy of the Government unpractical. For this reason we are propagating a federal association, a federal unity. Contrary to what is so often said in this House on the grounds of superficial study, I now want to say that in most countries of the world where there are great population contrasts and deeprooted ethnic and cultural differences, federalism in some form or another has proved to be by far the most successful constitutional instrument for existing inter-dependence to be …

Which countries?

The hon. member asks, which countries? I want to tell him that he only has to read the evidence which South Africa gave in the case in The Hague and that he will see there that our advocates mentioned 50 countries which have contrasts or differences of the same nature as South Africa has. More than half of the people in the world live under federal systems. Anyone who just takes a look at what is going on in the world will find that federalism in one form or another is by far the most successful constitutional instrument to reconcile any existing inter-dependence of nations with the requirement that the one will not dominate the other. Not so long ago the Czechs and the Slovaks in Czechoslovakia, who are two ethnic groups, formed a decentralized federation and in so doing achieved co-operation and peace. This happened after years of conflict. In this way one can cite one case after another.

We do not doubt in the least that there will be far greater agreement between white and black and far greater general support among them for the principle of decentralization of political power of white and black in South Africa if it is done on the lines we envisage. This is far more likely to succeed than the absolute objectives of the Government can. In fact, with its objectives of absolute fragmentation the Government has brought the concept of decentralization of power into such disfavour among thousands of Whites and Blacks that many who would be prepared to support reasonable objectives reject the whole idea of decentralization. This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had in mind when he came forward with the proposal which I called a challenge. The challenge was that the Prime Minister should place his whole plan on the Table and that he should call upon his Economic Advisory Council, which is his own, trusted body, to make an estimate, inter alia. …

Is this not to determine political policy?

No, it does not say so anywhere. But if this were to have been the case, it would have been the same as with the Tomlinson Commission; but now this is not the position in any case. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked for an estimate to be made of the full consequences of the Bantustan policy, including freedom and everything which the policy involves. He said that all this had to be placed on the Table so that it could be evaluated. Basically, however, it does not affect the principle of decentralization. It has nothing to do with the principle. It deals with the extent to which it is practicable. If the hon. the Prime Minister accepted this, if he believed in the practicability of his policy, a greater measure of consensus could at least have been achieved in regard to the handling of the whole matter.

However, I again emphasize that the proposal did not affect the basic principle of decentralization of political power at all. The hon. the Minister of Finance rejected the proposal very gently and he gave as his reason the fact that the Economic Advisory Council was not elected by the people. That was the only reason which he gave. That is of course no argument. The Tomlinson Commission was not appointed by the people either and, indeed, its terms of reference went a great deal further than the request of the Leader of the Opposition regarding what terms of reference should be given to the Economic Advisory Council. In fact, by way of a counter-proposal, and I think it was as a direct result of the proposal of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Finance did go so far as to invite industrialists to come and have candid discussions with him about the development of the Bantu areas.

Mr. Speaker, whatever the reaction of the Government and the Prime Minister may be, there is one matter which we as Whites will have to face. We in this Parliament, as a governing body consisting entirely of Whites, can make all the plans we like, but ultimately very little will come of them if we do not obtain the co-operation of the Bantu peoples concerned. The Government stresses the independence of the Bantu areas as its main objective. A week or two ago the Prime Minister said that they could come to negotiate and have discussions with him. But have any Bantu leaders reacted to that already? No, the fact of the matter is that there is no proof yet that any Bantu people in South Africa wants to secede on the terms of the Government. We will still have to see whether the Government will accept the conditions which they will lay down. We know, for example, what the conditions of Chief Matanzima will be. [Interjection.] We speak lightly of independence. But where is the proof—if it exists, let them give it to us—that any Bantu people is prepared to separate itself from the riches of South Africa, from what it regards as its economic and political potential? Where is there any proof that anyone wants to secede on the terms of the Government? We still have to see it.

However, I want to add that the hon. the Prime Minister placed the matter in the right perspective in his speech. He placed the accent on self-determination. You must remember, Sir, that self-determination not only means acceptance of the terms of the Government. It also means the right to reject them. That is included in it. Therefore I want to say to-day to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government that, if they neglect to develop the Bantu areas radically, dynamically and as a matter of priority, the whole idea of political decentralization of power in South Africa will collapse in so far as any of the parties advocate it to-day.

The hon. the Prime Minister is now entering his fifth year as Prime Minister. He has influential support behind him. He has an influential Press and a large majority. But I want to tell him that what we find lacking in the Government is a realization of the urgency of the situation. No matter whether it concerns Coloureds, Indians, or Bantu in Bantu areas, there is a lack of urgency on the part of the Government. Our problems are building up in the world. One can take one matter after the other. [Interjections.] No, Sir, just take the case of the Indian population. They had two representatives in Parliament 21 years ago, good or bad. Their representation was taken away, but to this day the Prime Minister has not made any move in order to provide them with an elected body of any kind in which they can participate in the process of government. One can view the question of the Coloured people in the same light. The whole attitude of hon, members on the opposite side is that this is a matter which we must leave to the future. One need only go to the Coloured University of the Western Cape to-day and talk with the students there to see what attitude is building up against the Whites. One need only go to an international rugby match, and if one bottle flies through the air, it is very soon followed by a thousand.

That has been the position throughout the years.

No, it has not been the position throughout all the years. This morning I went to meet people at a boat, and it struck me how many hundreds of Coloureds are travelling all over the world today just as we do. These people are not going to be satisfied with an inferior status, with supremacy (baasskap). The time has arrived that there should be a more venturesome spirit on the part of the Government in order to tell us exactly where they are heading with all the various population groups of the country. This is what we find lacking on the part of the Government, i.e. the sense of urgency in connection with the major problems with which we are faced.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not present in the House yet, and that is why I shall not reply to his speech immediately. When he comes in, and as my speech develops, I shall perhaps refer from time to time to what he has had to say in this House. We have now reached the end of a very long Budget Debate. It was a debate which was supposed to have been a very important one, because this is an important election year, with two elections. In this debate I noticed something, and I cannot allow it to pass without referring to it. In this Budget Debate the Opposition reached a low-water mark unparalleled in the history of this House. This debate involved gossipmongering and character assassination and occasionally hon. members on the Opposite side repudiated one another. That low level was in fact more in the way of a joke than anything else, I shall return to that later.

I do have some sympathy for the Opposition. I think I understand their problems. The task of an Opposition is to prove that the country does not have a good government, and that the country is not being governed correctly. They must on the other hand level criticism so that this good government can even be improved. I think that this was an impossible task for them, because in South Africa we have a good Government. The hon. member for Pinelands is laughing there on the other side, but I notice that it is a very embarrassed little laugh. However, it is his duty because he is a Whip and he is paid to do so. [Interjections]. Sir, I say that I have sympathy for them, because we have good government in South Africa.

This evening I want to mention a few requirements for good government. In the short while at my disposal I shall try to prove that in South Africa we not only have good government, but excellent government. The first proof I want to mention is that this party, from whom the government has been constituted, has over the years supplied the components for a good government. The policy followed over the years by the National Party is now being carried out to its logical consequences by this Government. That is why the task of the Opposition has become so impossible and that is why I have just a little sympathy for them. The first component for good government is political freedom. I am calling the first component freedom. I am referring here to political freedom. Who acquired for South Africa all the components of freedom? I want to ask my hon. friends on the opposite side just one component of political freedom which they acquired for South Africa.

General Smuts obtained three quarters of our freedom for South Africa. [Interections.]

The hon. member is trying to reply, but he knows that he has nothing to say. It was the predecessor of this National Party or the father of the National Party, i.e. the late General Hertzog, who with the Statute of Westminster acquired for us sovereign independence in this country. I was very young at the time, but I cannot remember from my early youth that that side made a wonderfully great contribution. What I can remember from my early youth is that it was for that side of the House an extremely unpopular thing which he brought back to South Africa.

I want to mention a second matter. Is it not this side who said that if you want a free people, they must have the right to speak in their own language? Was it not this side that brought this country equal language rights? Now I want to ask those hon. members to think back a little. If they can still succeed, after I have asked the following questions, in keeping their heads above their benches, they must tell me what part they played in that language struggle. No, Sir, it was negative. It was less than nothing. It was negative. While it was imperative for us to achieve those things, those hon. members tried time and again to disparage us and oppose us.

But let us consider another aspect, i.e. our flag. Who acquired these symbols of our nationhood for us? Was it that party? [Interjections]. Yes, my old friend, you will recall how long you clung to a second flag in Natal. Oh please, that poor old friend can have nothing to say. I shall come to him later on. I shall ask him a question later on. After all, one of my failings is that I like to put questions to the United Party. Those hon. members were so embittered that they wanted Natal to secede when we got a flag of our own. That member is one of their most embittered successors.

Jingoes.

Yes. there an hon. member has mentioned the friendly appelation. Who is it that got us a national anthem, and what was the attitude of those hon. friends to the national anthem? And recently when we argued about single citizenship of this country? To-day they are terribly concerned about citizenship. But what was the attitude of those hon. members to a single South African citizenship? Let us look it up in Hansard. I note that the hon. member for Pinelands is laughing. No, I think the hon. member is feeling ashamed of himself. Even if he is being paid to laugh, it is nevertheless difficult. I have sympathy for the member. I know that it is difficult to laugh about this matter when people are reproaching you. It tastes is as bitter as vinegar mixed with gall. This is the past of that party which is criticizing this Government in the House, a government with a proud past.

But, Sir, I want to mention one last point. Who saw to it that South Africa became a Republic, and what was the attitude of that side towards this Republic? What did those hon. members do during the last election? They asked the voters to hand over to their tender care this fine fledgling of ten years, whom they wanted to murder before his birth. It was a reckless thing to do. It was so reckless that the hon. member for Simonstown said in the Swellendam constituency that they helped fight for the Republic. We know how they helped to fight for it. They helped fight to kill it at birth. Now, however, they have the temerity to go to the country and to ask that the Republic, in its tender years, be entrusted to them so that they can have another chance to kill it.

Because this nation is aware of what political freedom means to people and what its value is, it is our policy in this country to lead the various peoples living together in South Africa to political freedom. I shall return later to this point. However, I do not want to dwell any longer on the first component, i.e. freedom. My old friends on the opposite side are very embarrassed. I quite like their being boisterous when I am speaking. However, when I am discussing this subject, it is not possible for them to be boisterous, even if they wanted to. Some, if not all of those members, have too much self-respect to do so.

The next matter I want to discuss is prosperity. Now, I do not want to make a speech on economics here. I merely want to talk to them for a while as a farmer, and then I want to show how ridiculous that hon. young member for King William’s Town was when he said that this Government had plunged this nation into poverty.

Of course.

Oh please, we are so used to the nonsense of the hon. member for Sea Point that we take no further notice of it. [Interjections], But I want to ask, how did we succeed in establishing this high standard of living which we have in South Africa? Was it through poverty and hardship? Another testimony to our prosperity is our sound monetary unit. I think there are few monetary units in the world which are as sound and more sought after than our rand. [Interiection]. The next question I want to ask is this: If a country has a balance of payments such as South Africa has, does it not have prosperity? No, those people have an impossible task. If a country has the industrial expansion South Africa has, does it not have prosperity? Yes, it has, but now I want to relate a little anecdote in regard to my constituency. They say there that we boast of our economic progress and our industrial expansion, but if they had not given us Iscor, then we would not have had that prosperity. They think the Namaqualanders are so ignorant, but that is why the Namaqualanders sent them packing with nothing to show for their pains, for they thought that they could insult our intelligence. Yes, they say that if we had not had the United Party which established Iscor for us, we would never have had that economic growth. But I want to come to the third component of good government, and that is the maintenance of peace in a multiracial and multi-lingual fatherland which consists of various peoples. If there is one thing which could lead to friction and dissatisfaction, it is the structure of South Africa. Show me another country with the potential for friction and problems that South Africa has. Yet this Government has led the country in such a way that to-night we have peace and harmony among all the peoples of South Africa, because it understood the problem of all the people, and did not, like those hon. members, try to argue away the facts with fallacious statements and insubstantial stories. No, we admitted we were more than one people, and we want to teach those peoples to be themselves and we want to help them to be themselves in this multi-national father-land. This is our concept, and when we have one day finished establishing the peoples in South Africa, I want to make the statement here and give the guarantee that the United Party will say that it was, after all, they who first came forward with the concept of multinationality; it was after all, they who led the peoples to independence. They have done so with everything this Government has established. Sir. on that basis of multi-nationality we are bringing about harmony and peace in South Africa which is unparalleled in the history of South Africa. But we have also brought peace among the white language groups in South Africa. I am now entering a sphere where I would be very pleased if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would return. But I understand, the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and King William’s Town are falling out in regard to what the policy of the United Party is, and I wonder who the referee is. Yes, the hon. member for Yeoville is playing the role of referee, but I wonder whether he can solve the problems. But now I want to state candidly, I have learned to believe that out of the mouths of babes and sucklings one hears the truth.

Then tell us the truth.

Has the hon. member for Yeoville managed to restore peace? But I think the hon. member for Yeoville has a difficult task on his hands. We have heard here to-night a young hon. member, with the impetuosity of youth, admit that the basis on which that party wants to find peace, is that the Afrikaner must cease to be an Afrikaner. [Interjections]. He stated this unequivocally. He said that was the basis. He is a dyed-in-the-wool United Party supporter and since his childhood days his father has been teaching him that he must stop being an Afrikaner, and then he would see national unity in South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Zululand whether he is prepared to stop being English. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban and a few other hon. members there the same question. Are they prepared to stop being English? No, I maintain that it was because they were trying to build national unity on a false basis that they were unable to succeed in doing so.

But I want to quote another juvenile to prove what I said here, that it is the policy of the United Party that the Afrikaner must sacrifice his Afrikanerdom. I want to quote what a certain Mr. Japie Basson said when he was still a young man and still had a love for the truth. In 1960 a correspondent of The Argus came to him and put questions to him, and wrote as follows—

Listen oarefully now. At the time he was a young man who still had a love for the truth, when the truth was still be heard from the mouths of sucklings, and he said—

That was when the hon. member was still a youngster, and spoke the truth. But I just want to complete my arguments. [Interjections.] If there is time, I shall reply to questions. I want to allege that a certain Mr Japie Basson said that there is no place for an Afrikaner in the United Party. Sir, it is that youngster who has now grown up and who now says that his young back-bencher was a little undiplomatic. That young back-bencher, with all the impetuosity of youth, made only one mistake; he spoke the truth; that is all. And that is the same mistake Mr. Japie Basson, at present the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, made in his youthful impetuosity when he said when he was still young that there was no place for the Afrikaner in the United Party, and when he told the Press what I have just quoted. But to-night he is saying that that young member does not know what the policy of the United Party is. Oh my, Mr. Chairman, how bitter it is to be a United Party man! How grateful I am that I was never a United Party supporter. Opposed to this there is the honest, fine, open policy of the National Party which says that we want co-operation between the white races in South Africa; the closest, the strongest, the best co-operation, but on a specific basis. Sir, that basis is one of respect for each other’s rights. That basis is that I shall respect you, I shall respect your language, your culture, your traditions, and your identity. But I demand the same for myself; I demand that I, too, be shown respect. I do not expect you to come and tell me that I must relinquish my Afrikanerdom, and that only then can we co-operate. Wonderful honesty. Sir! I should like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to give me a reply to this.

Sir, my time is up. There is a tremendous amount I still want to say, but let me say a few words about the next component, i.e. security. Do we have security in this country of ours to-night? Yes, of course! In this Africa, in this world of unrest, we find ourselves to-night in one of the most peaceful countries in the world, and how did we acquire that security? We acquired it because we were not afraid to do certain things and to adopt certain standpoints. We have built up a defence force here; we have built up a police force here; we have a Bureau for State Security here, and we are not ashamed of it. Hon. members on the opposite side arraigned us overseas and said that we were becoming a police state. When the hon. the Prime Minister, in his capacity at the time as Minister of Justice, came forward with his General Laws Amendment Bill, you will recall, Sir, how we had night sittings. The youngsters in this House will not remember it, but the old members will. Did we not have night sittings on the 90-day clause? Did we not have a night sitting on the 180-day clause? Was the hon. the Prime Minister not berated as a terrible person, as a monster, as a Nazi, because he introduced these things into South Africa in order to stabilize the security of South Africa? But we also have security because we have a policy in terms of which there is satisfaction and peace, because people who live at peace with one another, never feel insecure. No, this Government brought us security. We are grateful for that security. The Opposition has a difficult task. While all these components of good government are contained in this Government, while we are enjoying the advantages of good government in South Africa, the Opposition is finding it difficult to state a good case, and for that reason I want to excuse them for stooping to gossip mongering, character assassination and joking repudiations of one another, because they do not know what to say any more.

Under this aspect of security, I want to mention one more thing, and that is the security of survival. Sir, under this Government with its policy one feels that one has security of survival in the group, in the race, in the nation of which you are a member, because we have a policy which safeguards that survival. I should very much like to compare the standpoint of the two parties, but my time is almost up. In the few minutes at my disposal, I should however, just like to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope that he will have the decency to reply to it, because I have in my constituency openly been made out to be a liar. I challenge my United Party friends to ascertain what the position is and then to come along and inform me in public whether I had told a lie. I told them what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said in an interview with a certain magazine, Beacon, in January 1966, in reply to a question which a journalist had put to him. He put various questions to him, and asked inter alia—

Whereupon the hon. gentleman said—

When I made this statement in Namaqualand, a lot of United Party men came to their feet and said: “It is untrue, and we refuse to remain at your meeting; you are insulting our leader”. I issued that challenge and said that if the hon. members of the Opposition could get their leader to repudiate that this had taken place, I would strongly consider withdrawing my candidature in that election and making Mr. Cornelissen a present of that seat. Up till this day those heroes have not taken my challenge any further. I said that if they could ascertain from Sir De Villiers Graaff, the Leader of the Opposition, that he had in fact made those statements, then I expected them to have the decency—and at the time I still thought that they had some decency—to rise to their feet in a meeting and to say that they were sorry that they had made Mr. Maree out to be a liar, and would at a public meeting admit: “My Leader did say this!” To this day I have heard nothing from them.

Mr. Speaker, if you stop me I shall resume my seat. I want to go further until my time is up. One night, in the same constituency, we asked Senator Redi Louw, who alleged that they were the greatest advocates of apartneid, why they had originally opposed the Group Areas Act. He then said that surely we knew that they had not really opposed it. He said that it was such a poor Act, that they had merely tried to improve it a little. I discussed this with him further, and he landed himself in terrible difficulties. The next evening, when I attended the meeting of Mr. Cornelissen, he replied to my first question on group areas: “Oh please, do not be ridiculous. Surely you know that the Group Areas Act is an Act which we passed”. This is the United Party, and those are the people who want to govern our country. This is the party that has the temerity to conduct a Budget Debate with this Government. This is the hon. the Leader who has to lead those people, who sees his way clear to debating with our Prime Minister. Still, I have every sympathy with the hon. gentleman, because I know that it is a bitter task to get anywhere with such followers. It is an impossible task. That is why I am sorry for him, and I want to give him some good advice: Call the people to order. He must tell the people that he also endorses the policy of the National Party. They must stop obstructing this party in its policy in the implementation of its good government. They must also try to be a little more positive in the years which lie ahead and to support us in the policy which we advocate. They must demolish their negative approach.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, at one juncture in his speech, gave me such a fright that my heart almost stopped beating. He began to make overtimes. He said that in regard to certain points we were very close to one another. I hope that he is not seeking an opportunity for the next phase of his political hitch-hiking trip. It will be a bitter day for me if I had to pick him up. As hospitable Afrikaner, how will we be able to drive past him if he is standing in the road hitching a ride? [Interjections.] I now want to make an appeal in advance to our pilot: “Please, Mr. Prime Minister, if you drive past him, look the other way. I know that it is not easy for a generous man to drive past someone who is hitching a ride. But this is going to create problems for us in future. So please drive past.”

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for the country, having heard the hysterical outburst by the hon. member for Namaqualand, that this is the issue on which the next Provincial Council election is going to be fought. It is a pity that this will be an emotional election. It is obviously an attempt to change the debate again as we have experienced so often in this session in Parliament where Government members attempt to change the debate from things which really matter, to these emotional matters. That hon. member said all they want is “veiligheid van voortbestaan”.

Yes.

If the electorate return this Government again, the one thing they are not going to get is “veiligheid van voortbestaan” because with their policy of fragmentation, of cutting up the country into separate Bantu states, that is the one thing they will not get. The country is beginning to realize it, and that is why they have suffered a reverse in the last election. In any case, I will deal with that later. He has spoken about what the Nationalist Party has done for the Afrikaner people and for South Africa.

For South Africa, not for the Afrikaner people.

The greatest Afrikaners were in the United Party and in the old South African Party and not in the Nationalist Party. They are the people who did more than anybody else to build up this country to what it is to-day. They were the people who were able to ensure that we live in peace in this country to-day. I would like to remind him, and the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education will probably appreciate this, that at the Treaty of Versailles it was General Botha who represented South Africa after our participation in the First World War.

Who was he?

That is right, one of the hon. members asked who is General Botha? He was the Commandant of the Boer forces who put up a wonderful fight against the British forces and the Nationalists ask “Wie was hy?” Yes, they have just forgotten one of the Boer leaders. Because of Louis Botha’s participation in the 1914-1918 war and his presence at the Treaty of Versailles, South Africa was recognized de facto, if not de jure, as an independent state. It was through the efforts of General Smuts and the United Party that we were able to play a full part after the last war and so again received international recognition. I would like to remind him too that if it were not for the part that the United Party played in 1934 with General Hertzog and General Smuts, the Status Act may not have been passed. Because of the passing of the Status Act, we were able to declare a Republic without getting the permission of the British Governmenet. Otherwise we would have been in the same position as Rhodesia is to-day. [Interjections.] I know that they do not like swallowing this when they look at their record of the past and when they look at what they have done to attain international recognition.

I also like talking about national unity, about this new idea of the Nationalist Party. The hon. member wants to remind us of things which he said happened in the past. I do not believe him, because I think he is misinformed. The proof of this to me is Chat the member for Bezuidenhout now sits in the United Party and not in the Nationalist Party.

Are you trying to …

May I ask that hon. member, who does not live in the Transvaal, if he remembers what Che attitude of the Transvaal Nationalist Party was towards the Jews in the Transvaal when they were not allowed to become members of the Nationalist Party? I would like to ask them what their policy was with regard to immigration before 1948 when Mr. Eric Louw said that the Jews will not be allowed to come into the country. They have forgotten all Chat now.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I would also like to remind him of the attitude of the Nationalist Party towards the English-speaking people when General Hertzog wanted the political rights of the English-speaking people guaranteed. They refused to give him that guarantee and General Hertzog and Mr. Havenga had to leave the Nationalist Party. We do not like bringing up all this old history. We would like to forget it, but in this election, they are going Co make an emotional appeal to the Afrikaans-speaking people and that is what we will have to face. If they do it we will also hit back when they try to appeal to the English-speaking people. I am an English-speaking member of the United Party and I support our attitude that neither section, neither the English-speaking nor the Afrikaans-speaking section, must surrender their identity. You do not have to do it in the United Party.

Did you vote for the Republic?

No, I did not vote for the Republic.

And today?

I support the Republic to-day, but what about that? Am I wrong? Should I oppose it then? I want to build up a decent republic. That is what I want to have and not the kind of republic that I have been forced into by those hon. members.

This is an important session, because the Government have been compelled, albeit reluctantly, to make important policy statements. They have realized that the criticisms of the intellectual and the economists are meaningful, that they cannot merely rely on party loyalty any more. Party loyalty is not as strong as it used to be when they relied solely on emotions. What the people are now worrying about, including Nationalist supporters, is the good of the State. The 1970 election, although it did not bring about a change of Government, has certainly brought about some changes in Government policy. The wind of change has certainly come. The supporters of the Government, not necessarily the Members of Parliament here, but the people who count, economists and intellectuals, are worrying about the future of our country. They are not so concerned any more with prejudice and party loyalty.

It is being realized more and more, too, that Dr. Verwoerd was not infallible and there is a readiness now to depart from much of his policy. Some of the departures have been wise, for instance the change of policy with regard to development of the reserves. Others, of course, have not been so wise, for instance the abolition of Coloured representation in this House of Assembly. It is a departure from Dr. Verwoerd’s policy which has not been so wise.

His public policy.

Yes, his public statements.

We are unaccustomed to turnabouts by this Nationalist Government. I am not going to go through the whole list; they were given just recently. But what we do bemoan is the delay and waste of valuable years by this Government, instead of acknowledging the fact that our policies are right. They wait for ten and more years before they accept them, and then we have this unnecessary waste of valuable years.

After ten years you will accept it.

What will I accept after ten years?

Everything that the Government does.

I am very sorry. We have accepted the Republic, but we have accepted nothing else the Government has done. [Interjections]. Whose policy was it to do away with the Coloured representation in this House? Was it Dr. Verwoerd’s policy? No, of course it was not. Was it Dr. Malan’s policy? Of course it was not. I am not going to waste my time on all the other aspects, for instance immigration, etc. I want to get on to the development of the reserves.

The Government actually appointed a commission, the Tomlinson Commission, to investigate and make recommendations for the development of the reserves, because they realized, with others, that something had to be done. The question was whether the Nationalist Party Government could carry out a policy of development of the reserves. But what happened? Dr. Verwoerd rejected the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission.

Do you accept the report of the Tomlinson Commission?

That poor ex-member for Benoni, the R60 million member for Langlaagte, wants to know if I support the Tomlinson Commission’s report. Sir, I do not know why, but I am not surprised that Benoni kicked him out. He is so dense that he has not gathered yet, after all these debates, that we do support the recommendations of the commission. We made it quite clear that we do not support the majority of the members with regard to their recommendations of a separate state. But they do not say it in those words. Not at all! I asked the Prime Minister to read out from the report where they recommended independence. They never recommended it.

Do you accept Japie’s statement of this afternoon?

He stated the Party’s view, which is quite correct.

Dr. Verwoerd rejected the recommendation of the use of white capital in the development of the Reserves, but this is now accepted by the Nationalist Government. I should like to remind hon. members of what his attitude was, because they are apt to forget it and to deny it. They are apt to pretend that this has always been their policy. I want to read to them what Dr. Verwoerd said in this House. He said—

That was Dr. Verwoerd’s attitude in one statement he made. Then, in 1962, he said—

His point was that there would be no white capital in the Reserves.

On a permanent basis.

No, Sir, he did not want white capital at all. I think the Prime Minister was here at the time, and he must remember Dr. Verwoerd’s reason for not wanting to allow white capital to be used in the Reserves. He said that if you allow white capital into the Reserves, you must have white management, and if you allow white management …

It was a question of white ownership.

No, the Prime Minister must listen. This was Dr. Verwoerd’s attitude, and I am going to refer to it again now. His attitude was that if you allowed white capital into the Reserves, you would have to allow white management, and white management would mean white families in the Reserves. This would in turn mean white schools, churches, etc., and so white colonies would result. What did the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration say the other day?

On the agency basis.

Yes, on the agency basis. What did he say was going to happen, Sir? He said that we would eventually have work for between 40,000 and 50,000 Bantu, who would be established in the Reserves, and then you would have 782 white people who would take capital into the Reserves.

On the agency basis.

Yes, on the agency basis, but is the Deputy Minister now saying that the suggestion of the Minister himself should be followed, namely that these people must be flown out to their homes for the week-ends, or must they be established in the Reserves? Of course their families are going to be established there. The Deputy Minister knows that they are going to establish a new white town in Umtata. They intend establishing factories there, and white people will have to work in those factories. They will therefore have to have their homes there. He is suggesting just what Dr. Verwoerd wanted to avoid. Dr. Verwoerd wanted to avoid a white colony being established there. The Deputy Minister can get up and explain what he meant in his speech to the Rapportryers.

They will go there on an agency basis.

Yes, but the fact remains that white people are going to enter the Reserves to establish new industries.

That has always been the case.

That was not Dr. Verwoerd’s intention. I have already read out what Dr. Verwoerd said in this connection. Dr Verwoerd even went so far as to try to prevent others from taking part in such development. He even wanted to stop public bodies, like the Umtata Municipality, from taking part in that development. In 1956 the Umtata Municipality wanted to establish a hydro-electric plant at the Tsitsa Falls. They had to obtain permission from him to carry the electricity a short distance over Trust land to Umtata. They pointed out to him that the power so generated would be available to the Department for other development as well. The power would be available to the Natives living in the area as well. Dr. Verwoerd refused permission. He turned down the request because it would involve the acquisition by such a body of rights in and the utilization of resources in a Native area. And so he stopped it.

They oan get permanent rights.

They belong to municipalities and not to private individuals. The municipality was going to make that electricity available to Government Departments and to the Bantu for development. But he even stopped that. The Government is now attempting to take capital in on an agency basis. The Deputy Minister as well as the Minister gave information about the number of firms who have applied for those contracts. This Government has now been in power for 22 years. If this has always been their policy, why do they lag behind so much? How many people have been given employment under the agency basis? I asked the hon. the Minister a question in the House the other day and was told that 1,600 had so far been given employment. That cannot accommodate the people who are living in the Transkei or any other Reserve. That was for all the Reserves and not only the Transkei. This agency business is not working. They may have applications from a few people. The question however is how many Bantu are going to be employed? I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how many are being employed? Unless you offer them the profit basis, industrialists will not go in. We say capital must go in on a controlled basis; we do not advocate the free access of white capital. We say that it must be on a controlled basis and we gave the example of what we did at Zwelitsha when we established the Goodhope Textile Industry.

How will you control it?

As we did it with the Goodhope Textile Industry, That is a good example.

What did you control there?

We gave them a long lease on the land. What did Dr. Verwoerd say he was going to do about that? He was going to take that factory out of the Reserve. He never did but he said in the House that he was going to take it out of the Reserve. He said that it was wrong to have a white industry in the Reserve. It is naturally going to be difficult to attract white capital into the Reserves. Everybody agrees that we will have to have white capital in the Reserves otherwise there will be no development. With no development, the Government cannot carry out its policy. The hon. the Prime Minister has realized that there is going to be some reluctance of white capital going into the Reserves. The industrialists remember the warning given by Dr. Verwoerd when he was Minister of Native Affairs. He then warned that if white capital went into the Reserves or Protectorates and these Protectorates ultimately gained independence and industries were nationalized and they suffered damage in some form or other, they were not to come to him for protection. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister has now given the assurance that if industrialists who establish themselves on an agency basis suffer any loss as a result of the homeland becoming independent, this Government will indemnify them against any political action taken by that Government. These assurances have become very necessary because of two recent statements made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and by the Prime Minister. These assurances have now become doubly important because industrialists are going to be less likely than ever to go in.

There was a lot of talk about the independence of the homelands, the Reserves. We all thought it was a long way ahead. Dr. Verwoerd said that he did not want “verbrokkeling” at that stage. The way he spoke the country was given the impression that it was going to take place over a long time. Then the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said the other day that the Reserves did not necessarily have to be able to maintain or support their own people before they got independence. Then we had the Prime Minister saying that he was inviting them to ask for their independence. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in defending his attitude that the homelands need not be economically strong enough to support its own population, quoted Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. He said that the gross national income of each of those states was less than that of the Transkei. May I remind the hon. the Minister that these three Protectorates received financial assistance from Britain: but it was not enough. So what do they do? They go to another country to get assistance; they have come to us, and Botswana may go elsewhere as well. Once we give independence to our Native states and they are not viable, they are going to look for assistance as well. Surely, what is happening in those three states ought be a lesson to the Government that unless a state is viable it may also have to look for assistance and it may get that assistance elsewhere and not from us. That is what concerns us to-day, and that is what is happening in Botswana. The Transkei seems to be the first reserve which will get independence. The Prime Minister of course says it is self-determination.

What is the difference between independence and self-determination?

The Prime Minister said:

Now, what does self-determination mean? It means that they will have the right to choose, and supposing they do not choose independence, supposing they say they do not want independence, then they have the right tho choose what they want. The word “self-determination” is meaningless unless you give them the right to choose what they want, and if they choose to stay part of South Africa, part of the Republic and to be represented in this Parliament, have they not that right? [Interjection.] The Prime Minister says “no”, but then it makes his claim that he is giving them self-determination hollow and meaningless. The only choice they have is that they either can become independent or remain reserves on the conditions set out by the hon. the Prime Minister. What choice is that? That is not self-determination. But let us take the Transkei, the reserve which is most advanced. What is happening there? Supposing they ask for independence, which incidentally they are not going to do because they do not want it and they have said so. I want to ask the Prime Minister, to do something. He met a deputation from Port St. Johns some years ago when he visited Umtata. Here you have a colony of Whites completely surrounded by a black state and the only way out is by a road which has been proclaimed a national road, but that road has not even been located on the one side from Port St. Johns to Natal. They asked for that road to be put into a proper state and nothing has been done. The Prime Minister has not even answered their deputation.

But you got your reply from the Minister.

His reply was that nothing had been done because there was a shortage of staff. They cannot locate the road and they are not tarring the road. [Interjection.] That is no explanation. Those people are entitled to have a proper way of access and exit to and from Port St. Johns. They are completely cut off there and the least the Government can do, seeing that it is the Government which put them in that position, is to build a decent road for them. If there are flooding rains, they are cut off completely and they cannot get in or out. That is not right and they asked the Prime Minister to do something because they failed with the other Minister, and my appeal to him is to do something and to tell us what. Now the Prime Minister will admit this, too, that if you are going to set these people on the road to independence, you have to see that law and order are maintained and you have got to have proper communications. Who maintains law and order? It is the Police and the communications are kept open by the Post Office and by the Railways. Now the civil servants who work in that area, in the Transkei, get special allowances, territorial allowances and also housing loans, but the Police who are responsible for maintaining law and order and the Post Office and the Railways do not get those allowances, and it is most unfair. They are the people who work under more difficult circumstances than the civil servants do. And the reason why they cannot get the allowances is that they work for the Transkei Government, whereas the public servants are seconded to the Transkei Government. Sir, there is difficulty in getting teachers. People are reluctant to go to the Transkei unless the remuneration is high. In order to get teachers there, the Provincial Administration of the Cape pays the teachers an extra allowance and gives them a housing allowance. Why should only the Railwaymen, the Police and the Post Office employees be the people to suffer? Sir, I have made an appeal to the different Ministers on this issue but they have done nothing about it. The Minister of Railways seems to control that issue. I am now appealing to the Prime Minister to intervene and to look after these people. It is in the interest of the country as a whole to see that law and order is maintained there and that communications are kept open. What the Government should do is to ensure that they have an efficient and satisfied staff to carry out those duties. I appeal to him again to see that this is done. As I have said, unless those Departments are kept going, there will be a complete collapse of the administration in the Transkei.

Sir, as far as the policy of separate development is concerned, this policy of granting independence to the reserves, the position is that at the moment the Government is lucky in that none of the political parties in the Transkei wants independence. The democrats certainly do not want it and Chief Kaizer Matanzima and his party say that they are not going to ask for it until they are viable. But, Sir, you are going to find that some of the other reserves will ask for it. I think it is time the Prime Minister told the country, in view of his indication to all the reserves to come and see him to ask for independence, where their boundaries are going to be.

They were fixed in 1936.

I am shocked to hear that from the hon. the Prime Minister who should know better. I could understand some of his backbenchers saying that on the platteland, but I did not expect that from the Prime Minister in this House.

What do you mean by that?

I want to ask the Prime Minister where Mdantsane was in 1936; was it part of a reserve or was it part of a white area? It was part of a white area, and the Government then made it a reserve, alongside East London, and now they say that the Bantu working in the border areas of East London are accommodated in a reserve. Sir, the Prime Minister knows that you can move the boundaries. I must say that the only realistic thing that I saw in the reports of the meeting that Sabra is holding at De Aar is the statement made by one of the professors at the meeting that it was time the Government told the country where the boundaries are going to be, because nobody knows where they are. My appeal to the Prime Minister is to set at rest the worry in the minds of people in the country, especially those living near the reserves, as to where the final boundaries are going to be. The Prime Minister knows that Chief Kaizer Matanzima who supports the Government’s policy of separate development, has asked for certain areas to be added to the Transkei. He keeps on asking for it and he is not always going to be put off. The Prime Minister should now tell the country definitely where the final boundaries will be; then there can be no more trouble caused to people because of the fact that different Bantu chiefs ask for more areas to be added to their land.

The only ground that they will get is the ground allocated to them in 1936 plus the 7¼ million morgen.

That is what we want to know; where is this 7¼ million morgen going to come from, because that is going to fall into the reserves. When the Government talks about giving independence to the reserves, we must know where that extra land is coming from. After all, 7¼ million morgen is a lot of land. The Prime Minister has admitted now that he is going to give them an additional million morgen.

What is the policy of the United Party?

The policy of the United Party is not to make them independent states; that is the difference; we are not giving part of South Africa away, and the Prime Minister must tell us where he is going to get that million morgen, so that the people in Zululand, for instance, will know what is going to happen to them.

Sir, I do not want to elaborate much on the problems of the hon. member for Transkei. His problems remind me of the joke one hears about a man and a woman who were married, and who, on teturning from their honeymoon, found that their parents had built a house for them, that the house had been fully furnished, cot and all. That night they went to bed; early the next morning the man went over to the cot and, on seeing that there was still nothing in the cot, he said to his wife that he really could not understand it. Sir, this is how innocent the U.P. members are. When one refers to the homelands and homeland freedom, they, on rising from their beds the next morning, expect us to have the title deed for those homeland borders quite ready, so that they may go about and spread gossip. [Interjections.] Sir, what did that hon. member say in a debate here the other day? When the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development sounded a slight warning to those people who are always in league with the Bantu and asking them to collaborate against the National Party, against the National Party’s aspirations and its stated policy, the hon. member for Transkei was the only one of the three who were under suspicion who came forward and said that he did not accept the Minister’s warning; that he would, whenever he pleased, consult and visit any Bantu whom he wished to consult and visit, and that he would not allow himself to be threatened by the Minister. I must say that he did at least have the courage of his convictions. The other two gentlemen are in Natal at the moment, and I shall deal with them later on.

Who are they?

Sir, let me start where I wanted to start, i.e. with Klip River. The by-election at Klip River now belongs to the past. At that election we saw the United Party in all its nakedness; we saw them as they are, i.e. racialists in the worst sense of the word. This confirmed and strengthened our suspicion that in canvassing they busy themselves with racial incitement from morning till night, and this is in fact the reason why the daughter and the wife of the defeated candidate at Klip River said, “To think that this Nationalist scum should rule our country.”

They are prompted to say such things by that side.

That is not all, Sir. I want to quote to you from the Hansard of Another Place in Natal what was said there. It was said—

Then he went on to make a lot of loathsome statements.

Who was it?

Major Arthur. But that is not all, Sir. They stick to their guns. None of the members of the executive council has Afrikaans as their home language.

Apart from that, the member charged with regulating the Parks Board gave an undertaking in 1968 … [Interjections.]

Order!

That member gave the undertaking that one Nationalist would be appointed to that autonomous body. It was just a red empire, a jingo empire. But he gave way under pressure, and up to the present moment not one single person who is sympathetic towards the National idea has been appointed to that Parks Board. It is the empire of that side of the House. They are the people who are attacking us now. The hon. member for Sea Point has even said that they are also standing for certain things now for which the National Party stands. He does at least want to keep Sea Point white, and now a block of flats has to be erected close to Sea Point, flats in which the non-Whites working in Sea Point may be housed. This is the kind of double-faced story with which they are going to the voters. In Klip River we came across this from house to house. By refraining from putting up someone as a candidate in Klip River, Natal could now have proved to the rest of the Republic of South Africa that they have appreciation for any person who exerts himself for bringing English and Afrikaans-speaking people together. But they are more ungrateful than the black people I know, and so they nominated a sour-mouthed (bitterbek) jingo in that constituency. He went from house to house, and on a racial basis incited people against the present elected Deputy Minister.

What stories did you not tell!

Order!

That hon. member is the last one who should talk.

No, you …

Order! When I call for order, the hon. member for Durban (Central) should listen.

That hon. member has least reason to complain. He is one of the chaps who went around in the road camp and told the people that they were living in such simple houses because the National Government did not want to make money available for better housing. But he did not tell them that it was the Provincial Administration of Natal which had built those houses. Nor did he tell them that an amount of R8 million of the National Road Fund was being ploughed back. No, this he did not tell them. He said that the poor housing conditions which prevailed in the road camp in Drakensberg, were the fault of the National Government. This is the kind of story they tell. And then they still think that they can get away with it. However, we followed them closely and we were able to expose those stories and explain what the right position was.

But I want to come back to what I wanted to say. If they only had the decency displayed by my farm labourers, who, whenever I give them a piece of bread or a plate of porridge, say, “Thank you, Master”, or “Thank you, Sir”, then they would not have put up a candidate there. But they have now destroyed the 9½ years which the Administrator of Natal sacrificed for the purpose of bringing English and Afrikaans-speaking people together, by nominating a candidate to oppose him. Fine, this may be their right, but then they still had no right to exploit his Afrikanership, his cultural ties and his position. They did the rounds there and tried to influence our Afrikaner people by saying that Mr. Gerdenr had allegedly admitted that he was a member of the Broederbond. But none of them had the courage to say to what organizations in South Africa they belonged so that we might tell the voters where they were carrying on their intrigues at night. This is the cowardice with which we had to deal. But, what is more, they fought the election and lost it. In the course of the 9½ years during which Mr. Gerdener was Administrator, he put Natal on the map. He played a major role in making it possible for an amount of more than R110 million to be poured into dams and reservoirs alone. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceeds.

Mr. Speaker, I know that that side of the House is sensitive about this matter, for in 1948 no provision had as yet been made for Government dams in Natal. The industrialization in Natal, the fact that Natal was put on the map, and the inquiry into the Tugela catchment area, all of these are things which they now claim to have come about through their efforts. Surely, this is not true. That survey was made on the instructions of the National Government. Capital expenditure on Natal is out of all proportion to similar expenditure in all the other provinces. All these things are to the advantage of Natal, and instead of their being grateful for them, they proceeded to fight us tooth and nail because we dared to nominate a National Party candidate in Klip River.

However, that is not all. This matter goes much further than that. In regard to the United Party, I want to state unambiguously to-night that they are a diabolical party which is reaching down the depths and trying to get hold of the marrow of the Afrikaner and the artery of his heart. I say this, because even if the Government were, with the best of intentions, to announce a scheme in Natal, they and the organs supporting them would see a dark motive behind it. A dam is to be built shortly at Albert Falls, which is situated in my constituency. Their organs are speaking well of this project, but they have also informed the people that boating will now disappear completely and that a deep dam will be built, whereas previously people could swim there in hip-deep water and sail their boats. The name of this place is Lake Peattie. They did not ask the people who are living around Lake Peattie, for those people, although they are English-speaking, are National Party supporters. We take our has off to them, because in spite of the United Party’s intimidation they still have the courage of their convictions to stand by us. If one wants to be an English-speaking Nationalist in Natal, one should really know how to hold one’s own, because one does not know to what sinister forces the United Party in Natal may resort in order to liquidate, intimidate and cast suspicion on these people. They always seek help behind the colour bar. The hon. member for Zululand and the hon. member for South Coast should not adopt such a sanctimonious attitude here, for they are the gossip-mongers. That hon. member for Zululand is the man who, for instance, when cattle were poisoned on a certain farmer’s farm, sent his lieutenants to obtain the particulars because the Government was allegedly too slow in paying out that claim. That is the kind of thing on which they live.

That is not all. The moment the sluices of the Josini Dam, or rather the J. G. Strydom Dam, are shut off during times of drought, and the water level of the lakes behind the embankment of the dam starts dropping, the non-Whites are told that their fishing waters will disappear one of these days, because the water level is dropping so tremendously. Every day one sees in the newspapers that the northern parts of Lake St. Luoia are becoming so salty that the fish have disappeared. These things are not done with the intention that a solution has to be found, but with the intention that the non-Whites, who are dependent on the fish in that lake and who have to make a living out of it and whose food it is, should develop an allergy to the National Party and to the National Government. It is for that reason that I said a moment ago, at the beginning of my speech, that the hon. member for Transkei did at least have the courage of his convictions.

Look at the way he is interpreting.

They will have to. I say the hon. member for Transkei had the courage to say that he, as far as he himself was concerned, would conduct interviews with the non-Whites. I have a suspicion that the latest anti-Government statements and demands for more land, as well as other demands of a divergent nature, which are directed at the Government, actually originated with the hon. member for Zululand, for he is the man who engaged in gossip-mongering all over Zululand. He is the man who organized the Bell affair, the Agliotti affair and all the other character assassinations they want to perpetrate—as though this is so funny.

But he is a bad one!

But they bring those matters to the public notice. Now, one may wonder why they do not publicise the Wilks case. He was a member of their executive committee, charged with hospital services. Before we knew where we were, virtually all the laundries were in his possession and the hospitals were obliged to have their washing done at those laundries. But they do not come to this House with this kind of case. They are really a diabolical party, because they do not care what forces they enlist and what forces they unleash in order to plough the Afrikaner and the Nationalist under. Sir, unfortunately time does not allow me to say much more, but I can give you the assurance that, if I did in fact have the time, I would prove to you tonight, giving chapter and verse, how these people who are pretending to be so pious before us, are colluding with enemies behind our backs. I have reason to say that they would not stop at anything to achieve their objectives, because they have not reached the level of development where they can be incited without using violence.

Mr. Speaker, mindful of the good advice recently given in a newspaper by an expert on parliamentary procedure and etiquette, a person who had recently announced his retiremenet after 41 years of active political service, as to what the contents of a new member’s maiden speech should be, I should like to give you the assurance that I shall adhere strictly to the procedure of the past and to the traditions of this House.

It is a pleasure for me to represent the constituency of Odendaalsrus in this House, and more particularly to be able to do so on this side of the House. It is a pleasant privilege and an honour to me, because this is an outstanding constituency. It is outstanding because it forms the heartland of the Free State maize area, because it produces a large part of the Free State’s gold, because clear signs of industrial establishment and growth are already discernible, and particularly because of the exceptional people who live in that constituency. Thus we find that all three the corner-stones on which the South African economy rests, namely agriculture, mining and industry, are very strongly represented in the constituency of Odendaalsrus. In respect of each of these three aspects I have something special to say, but I hope to do so in due course in further sessions of this House.

What I intend saying now, I want to say with reference to the political currents in our country, especially with reference to one particular group which is at present operating outside this House, but more particularly with reference to rumours which I came across in my election campaign and which were designed to prejudice my candidature and which concerned the position I would allegedly take up in South African politics in the future. I therefore want to make it very clear to the voters of Odendaalsrus and to the members of this House that in South African politics I am standing where I have always stood. The voters of Odendaalsrus will always find me standing where I am standing now. By this I mean that I regard it more as a task and as a duty, that I regard it as a sacrifice to my country and my people to assist the Government in its great task of governing this country in such a way that it will be to the advantage of every population group living in this country.

I shall assist it in its great task of implementing its relationships policy, so that racial peace and harmony may be maintained. I shall assist it in its great task of guiding the Bantu homelands to full independence, so that stability may be brought in Southern Africa. I shall assist it in its great task of establishing bonds of friendship with our neieghbouring states and the rest of Africa, so that insight and understanding may be created. I shall assist it in its great task of deciding for itself how this country will be governed, without being dictated to by others but under the guidance of the Holy Trinity, and how the people of this country shall live here. I therefore say unequivocally that I wholeheartedly endorse the policy of the National Party and the way in which it is being implemented, and that I support the Prime Minister in his great task. I support him in the lead constantly being taken by him in order to implement this policy in this way. The hon. member for Sea Point laid down certain requirements for security and prosperity, and as illustrated by the hon. member for Namaqualand, it is precisely these aspects in which we are all interested, regardless of our political views, namely the protection and the security with which each of us as inhabitants of this country can go our daily ways. Unrest and uncertainty destroy progress and prosperity, and bring chaos, hardship and fear in their stead.

The progress and prosperity prevailing in this country is characteristic of a society which has peace and quiet as a result of good administration. Peace and quiet in a country, to the extent in which we find this in South Africa, has almost become something unique in the world to-day. More than that, it is an achievement. This unique South African situation of peace and quiet and the achievement of progress and prosperity is more than sufficient proof of the fact that the present Government has fulfilled its guarantee to the inhabitants of this country in regard to their protection and security. In more than one overseas country there are race riots, religious rebellions and terrorist activities which do not even spare the countries which are their hosts. There are student riots and youth rebellions in those countries. Compared with them, South Africa is indisputably a safer country in which to live. In a world which has become dangerous and crude, this Government has fulfilled its guarantee of protection, security, peace and quiet with great distinction, and in addition it has built up prosperity and progress on that basis.

Therefore it is so inconceivable that a body such as the World Council of Churches, which we would like to accept as a body with a Divine task and calling, has now revealed itself to us as a godless institution which does not even hesitate to associate itself with Communism, with the object of destroying existing order, peace and quiet in an established community. Thus far, hostile countries in Africa and terrorist organizations have taken thorough cognizance of the. guarantee by this Government that it will project and safeguard the future of this country. If the World Council of Churches has not yet heard of this guarantee, I trust that they will soon have that experience. If the Government takes action against member churches of the World Council of Churches in South Africa or against their office-bearers, it will by no means be a violation of the concept of sovereignty in their own sphere. Even less will it be illegitimate interference, as some people like to say, because the World Council of Churches overstepped the bounds of its jurisdiction when it entered a section of the political field, that field which is concerned with our protection and our security.

According to all standards—religious standards, social standards and political standards —the Government has therefore been justified in its action so far against certain officebearers of member churches of the World Council of Churches in South Africa. In conclusion, I want to express a word of thanks and appreciation to a worthy predecessor in my constituency. Ben Havemann, now the hon. the Administrator of Natal. As a member of the National Party he served the constituency of Odendaalsrus in a worthy manner in this House. I am convinced that he ewill justify the confidence placed in him in his having been appointed to the high office which he now occupies.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Odendaalsrus on the fluency with which he delivered his maiden speech. I should also like to congratulate him on the charm which he exhibited while delivering that speech and the fact that he was able to deliver his maiden speech entirely without any notes. I am sure that these two things will enable him greatly to make progress, which I am sure lies before him in this House. I must say, however, that knowing that the old tradition is that one’s maiden speech is always non-controversial, the hon. member at times reminded me of an act one sees in the circus of an acrobat walking along a tightrope with a safety net underneath him for the purpose of catching him should he fall off that tightrope in his difficult balancing act in keeping on the narrow and straight line I hope the hon. gentleman will not mind if I say that at times I feel that he was overbalancing a little from the narrow line of a non-controversial speech. Indeed, at times I wondered whether he had not fallen into the safety net. But, Sir, he did bounce back towards, the end of his speech onto the tightrope of the non-controversial speech. I am sure that as he has the ability to do that and as we witnessed here this evening that there will be a great future for him in this House. I should like to congratulate him therefore on his maiden speech.

The speech of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus was an interesting contrast. I may say, with that of the hon. member for Vryheid. One tends to be a little irritated by speeches such as we heard from that hon. gentleman to-night. But one’s irritation is always tempered by the comforting thought of the great and enormous part which the two hon. and verkramote gentlemen, the hon. member for Vryheid and the previous hon. member for Klip River, now the Commissioner-General for the Zulu, Mr. Torlage, played in the recent general election in Natal in winning so many seats for the United Party. Few people did more to give to the United Party the seats of Zululand, Umlazi and Umhlatuzana than the hon. gentleman who has inst spoken, the hon. member for Vryheid. In his campaign in Natal he expressed sentiments such as he has expressed in the House tonight. To-day, 1970. is not the time for expressions and sentiments of that kind. I should like to refer to one or two of the things that he said. He made a reference to what he alleges Mai. Arthur said in the Natal Provincial Counci.

I did not allege it. I said so.

This was a man he alleged was the chairman of that council. As far as my knowledge goes, he is not the chairman. This person to my knowledge is fully bilingual. The hon. member made allegations in regard to that gentleman which I simply do not accept. He also made reference to the Natal Parks Board. He said that on the Natal Parks Board nobody had been appointed who was an avowed supporter of the National Party.

This really suprises me. I can remember when this Government came into power or shortly thereafter, prominent English-speaking South Africans, supporters of the United Party, summarily being dismissed from the Board of Trustees of the National Parks Board, people who had given their lifetime to the principle of game preservation. But we hear nothing about that to-night.

Who are they?

Dr. George Campbell of Durban was one of them. There are few organizations in this countiy that do a greater service for the preservation of game and enjoy better public relations with the people of this country than the staff of the Natal Parks Board. There are numbers of prominent members in this House—and I do not propose to name any—whom I myself have heard paying the very highest compliments to that organization for the task they are performing and the manner in which they do it in respect of all of the population of South Africa.

Now the hon. member refers to the lack of activity by the United Party in respect of the building of dams and the surveys being done in Natal. The hon. gentleman referred to the survey of the Tugela basin and he tried to take the kudos for the Nationalist Party in that regard. That survey was done by the Town and Regional Planning Commission of the United Party Administration in Natal. Let me say this to the hon. gentleman, that the hon. Senator Groenewald in the Other Place had the good sense to acknowledge publicly, and it stands in the Hansard of the Other Place, that that was the finest planning institution in South Africa, established and run by the United Party.

Finally, he referred to me personally and to the hon. member for South Coast. He mentioned that I, so he alleged, had raised, as he averred, “skinderstories” in regard to the Agliotti deal and the Bell issue. I certainly raised the Bell issue, which is the subject of a Select Committee inquiry and it would be improper for me to deal with it further. But so far as the Agliotti deal is concerned, such is the irresponsibility of the hon. gentleman, I have never in my life uttered a syllable in respect to Mr. Agliotti. But I may say. from what I have seen so far, that it seems to me that anybody who has commented adversely on that deal is likely to come out on the right side. Finally, as I understood the hon. gentleman, he averred that I was responsible for the demands made by the present chief executive of the Zulu Territorial Authority for additional land. [Interjections.] Well, he referred to my being responsible for demands for additional land, and if that is not what he was referring to then there is no sense in the allegation whatsoever.

You do not understand what went on there.

I do not want to waste any more time on the hon. gentleman. That allegation likewise is wholly without foundation. Now, when I spoke in the Censure debate earlier this Session I outlined what I believed were the five basic essentials for the success of the Government’s policy of partition. They were as follows, and I quote from Hansard of 23rd July at Col. 287. I said this—

I went on to say that I did not believe there was any prospect of any of those five basic essentials being achieved. I had read earlier in that speech from an editiorial in Die Burger which was as follows, and I quoted a translation of that editorial—

Sir, where else in the world do you find in power a Government which has as one of the principal planks of its platform a policy which is the subject of almost universal disbelief? As Die Burger, an official organ of the Nationalist Party, puts it, they do not believe that what is said can be done or will be done. You notice, Sir, that the disbelief is founded on two bases; not only will it not be done, but that it is not capable of being done. That disbelief arises because nowhere do we have open discussion led by the Government and involving the Government on the practical considerations arising out of the implementation of that theory. We are given lengthy dissertations on the theory itself, on the theory behind the policy of partition. We had such a speech from the hon. the Prime Minister earlier in the discussion of his Vote, to the extent that almost all of us know that theory by heart; we have heard it so many times, but neevr is anything meaningful said by the Government on the subject of its implementation.

Now let us take the first of the five points I mentioned earlier and examine it from the point of view of a Government that seriously intends implementing a policy of partition, a policy which it has been busy preparing and polishing in theory for some 22 years. Now the first point, as I said, whas that there must be in existence in respect of each Bantu nation, an area of land capable of forming the basis of a state. No one who has the slightest acquaintance with the fragmentation of the Bantu Reserves in South Africa will deny that the implementation of the policy of partition necessarily involves large-scale consolidation of the Bantu areas. I have been in this Parliament now for 10 years, here and elsewhere, and I have never once heard a Minister or a responsible Government member, attempt to tell this House or the country how it is proposed to consolidate the Bantu areas, what the problems are in that connection and how these problems are to be dealt with. There are people—and this is the astonishing state of affairs we are in—outside of the Government and outside of Parliament who discuss these matters regularly, but in Parliament, where the very heart of the discussion ought to take place there is a desert in that regard. There are people outside who sincerely believe in the policy of partition and who are prepared to discuss what is involved in its implementation. There is, for example, Prof. Lombard, Professor of Economics at the University of Pretoria, who writes in the journal of the S.A. Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, Tegnikon, of March, 1967.

Do you know that he is a member of the Bantu Affairs Commission?

That makes it even more interesting, if a member of the Bantu Affairs Commission can say the things I am now going to read out. Then it has far greater authority than I ever thought it had. I hope the hon. gentleman will listen now. I am quoting from page 19 of the issue of March, 1967—

He is talking about the economic co-operation in South Africa and he is discussing the various units which will form the entities which will co-operate the one with the other. He then sets out the various states which he envisages and he envisages a Zulu state and a Xhosa state amongst others. Then he goes on—

The hon. the Prime Minister earlier told us that we know the boundaries, that they are laid down in the Acts relating to the scheduled Native areas.

Of course we know the existing boundaries.

We are not concerned with the existing boundaries; we are concerned with the boundaries as they will be. Prof. Lombard, as any intelligent man who accepts the policy of the Government is bound to do, draws a map and sets out what his view is in regard to the consolidation necessarily essential to the building up of independent Bantu states. It is very interesting. He gives to the Transkei the whole of Southern Natal and the whole of the area which can be described as East London. He gives to the Zulus the whole of the north coast of Natal up to and north of Durban and a large part of Northern Natal.

What about the Indians?

They disappear. He gives to the South Sothos an area called Sotholand, the greater part of the Northern Transvaal. He gives part of the Northern Transvaal to Mozambique and he gives part of the Northern Cape and the Western Transvaal to Botswana; and what is more, he goes on to quote the late Dr. Verwoerd as support for his actions in this regard. The Tomlinson Report likewise made it clear that large-scale consolidation would have to take place if this policy was to succeed and that commission was prepared to draw tentative maps to indicate the direction in which the consolidation was to take place. The hon. member for Transkei referred earlier to the Sabra Congress at De Aar, and Prof. Richards of the University of the Orange Free State, speaking at that congress is reported as having said that a solution for the race problem should include two things, a consistent campaign to convince all Whites that there should be separation and to accept the full consequences of that policy; which is one thing we are never told about in this House. Secondly, Prof. Richards said that the speedy implementation of the homeland policy should be taken to its logical conclusion. That is another thing we are never told about in this House. Referring to the pressure in the outside world, he said that South Africa should seek friends and bring its policy to conclusion as soon as possible. To seek friends, he said, would not succeed if in the end our solution does not work. And this is the problem that we likewise have in this House. At the same congress there was another professor, Prof. Nieuwoudt of the Department of Political Science at the University of Pretoria, and he is reported as follows:

Prof. Nieuwoudt said disputes about border boundaires often led to international conflict and even wars and if we want to live in peace in South Africa we will have to lay down definite borders for the proposed Bantustans. He went on to say that the demarcation of the boundaries of the six Bantustans which are to be created will not, however, be an easy task. There is no suggestion that the boundaries are there already.

The report goes on to say—

of the Bantustans would cost millions of rands and amongst the points that would have to be carefully weighed up would be the security of South Africa. You see, Mr. Speaker, outside of Parliament there is an earnest discussion on what is involved in the implementation of this policy. People outside who sincerely believe in this policy are prepared to discuss its implementation and everyone points out the difficulties involved. But never do we get any indication from the Government in regard to these matters. Is it surprising then, Sir, that Die Burger has to write a leading article saying that the problem is one of disbelief.

Sir, what exactly does consolidation for the purpose of partition mean? We have been told many times that the growth of the border industrial areas is one of the best indications of the success of the policy of separate development.

Look what happened in Natal.

I am glad that the hon. member agrees. They are a success because, we are told, there you have the beginnings of what will be large Bantu towns in the homelands adjacent to white industrial areas where there is employment for large numbers of Bantu. We are told that large black towns will grow up in the homelands adjoining the border industrial areas. Sir, where are these border industrial areas which are so often talked about? In Natal: Hammarsdale, Pietermaritzburg, Ladysmith, Newcastle and Richard’s Bay; in the Transvaal: Pretoria; in the Cape; East London, to name but a few of them. It stands to reason that these large Bantu towns now being established in the homelands in accordance with the Government’s policy of partition are being established in areas which will ultimately be in the relevant consolidated independent homelands. In other words, these towns adjacent to border industrial areas can be regarded as fixed points in the process of consolidation—as permanent points of urbanization in the future black states. An Examination of any map will show that all these border industrial areas I have mentioned are situate next to portions of the homelands which are comparatively small black islands or fragmentary pieces of homeland surrounded by white land …

Like Rosslyn.

… pieces of homeland that are so situate firstly that consolidation with larger black areas is essential and, secondly, so situate that such consolidation can only take place by large-scale expropriation or compulsory purchase of white areas. It is time we had some discussion on this. It is time we were told by the Government what machinery it has set up to bring about this large-scale expropriation or compulsory purchase of white-owned land. It is time we were told what planning has been done in this regard, what it is going to cost, what the sociological implications are and what the effect will be on our economy. [Interjections] I do not mind whether it is controlled or not. I should be horrified if it were not controlled but, controlled or not, the implications for the people concerned are the same, and this is something that we ought to have discussed and made known to us.

Sir, another of the five points raised by me in the earlier debate this yeear for the success of the policy of partition was that the white state should be able to survive and prosper without the bulk of its Bantu labour. This is another point that Prof. Richards dealt with at the congress to which I have just referred. He said—

Do they agree?

Sir, what is the position? Does the Government accept that as part of the policy? The hon. the Minister of Information said that it was the ultimate goal. Do other hon. gentlemen in the Government agree with that, or do we once again have a division of opinion in the Cabinet on this issue? Because if it is the ultimate goal that we will do without the majority of our Bantu labour, what are this Government’s plans to compensate for the departure of that labour? How is the economy going to be affected by it and how are those labour-intensive industries and farming pursuits to carry on without black labour? Indeed, Sir, the border industrial areas, on that basis, are doomed to failure because you have large-scale industrial enterprises in those areas specifically established on the basis of low-cost Bantu labour, without which they would simply disappear.

Mr. Speaker, I shall have to cut my speech short. There is one final point and that is the question of defence, a point which was again raised at the Sabra conference at De Aar. Sir, the question of defence in relation to the consolidation of the Bantu areas and the establishment of black states is something which I never yet heard mentioned in ten years in Parliament by hon. gentlemen on the Government benches. Sir, what is the position? If my analysis is correct that the border industrial areas are being established next to what you might call permanent points in the scheme of things for the future consolidation of the Bantu areas, each of them being the beginning, according to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, of major Bantu towns in which freehold rights are to be granted, then what is the position? The position is that next to the capital of South Africa, Pretoria, next to all the major ports on the eastern seaboard— Richard’s Bay, Durban and East London—next to most of the major new industrial growth points in this country, namely the border industrial areas, you will have a high-density and urbanized Bantu population within 20 miles at most of those centres, forming part of the consolidated foreign black states. Sir, if that does not raise an issue which warrants discussion in this Parliament, then I do not know what does. If we are to have in respect of Durban, South Africa’s major port, high-density Bantu population groups, not 12 or 20 miles away but on one side with a common boundary and with an independent Zulu state on either side of that port, and very much the same thing applies within a distance of five miles of Richard’s Bay, within a distance of 12 miles of East London and within a distance of 20 miles of Pretoria which is not only the capital but the headquarters of our defence system, the centre of civil and military administration for South Africa; if that is what we are deliberately setting out to bring about, then surely at this stage at least of our history we ought to have a serious discussion on these matters. Hon. Ministers sitting opposite ought to take the House and the country into their confidence and explain not the theory of separate development which, as I say, we know off by heart, but how this is to be implemented.

Sir, so often in these debates hon. gentlemen opposite compare the theory behind Government policy with the implementation of what the United Party stands for, but what we ought to have is either the theory of hon. gentlemen opposite as against our theory or a comparison between what is involved in the implementation of the Government’s policy and the implementation of the policy of the United Party. Sir, we have had weeks of discussion on how United Party policy is to be implemented and what effect it will have. Indeed, in every discussion we have the hon. the Prime Minister turns the debate on to that aspect of affairs. Sir, let us have just once the other side of the coin; let us have some serious discussion from the Government on the implementation of the policy of partition, as it is being freely debated in many places outside of this House, but never once, to my knowledge, in this House, because if there is a credibility gap, as Die Burger suggests, in respect of one of the main planks of the Government’s policy, then a state of affairs can only develop which is to the detriment of South Africa and all its people.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is taking place in the late hours of the evening and also in the late hours of this Session of Parliament, and if everything goes well, we shall soon return to our homes You will pardon me if I do not react immediately to the previous speaker. I just want to devote a few brief moments to the United Party. What has this alternative government produced in this Session which can make us or the people outside believe that they will in fact be able to take over the government one day? In my opinion, absolutely nothing. They have disappointed the people outside. They were extolled and carried by the English-language Press, but nothing has come of the high expectations which the supporters of the United Party had of it.

Sir, I do not want to mention figures and statistics here this evening, but I want to talk about the love which I have for the National Party. This National Party has a long and honourable history. We all know the National Party. Ever since 1914 the National Party has believed that every population group and language group should retain its identity. Unlike the hon. member for King William’s Town, we do not believe that every white group, every Afrikaans-speaking person and every English-speaking person should give up his identity so that we may be united into one people. We have always believed that we should respect all the fine attributes of the other groups, in the same way that we respect our own. In these past debates, we have heard a great deal; especially from the young members, who are conspicuous by their absence on that side this evening, about what the youth exrects of us in the future. In their absence I should like to say to them that the youth which forgets its history and the fine qualities of its people has no future. But we can safely entrust the future to the youth which preserves the history of its people and which has experienced hard and difficult times together with its people. Sir, in this national history, too, there were two roads which started in 1910 and diverged in 1912. The one was the road of Botha and Smuts and the other was the road of J. B. M. Hertzog and his followers. The road of Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts was the road which brought them fame quickly and easily, the road which offered everything which any politician’s heart may desire. The other road was that of J. B. M. Hertzog, the road which was difficult and strewn with problems, problems which had to be solved in the future, but the road on which the identity of the Afrikaner was preserved, the road of which he once said: Rather on the ash-heap with my friends than in the great halls with my enemies. There are members sitting in this House to-day who also had the privilege of choosing between these two roads. Yes, there are persons of my own blood sitting here who chose the easy road, that of Louis Both and Gen. Smuts.

Are you fighting the provincial election now?

No, I am not fighting the provincial election. I am addressing this to the young friends who asked: What can this generation offer our young people? I want to offer them this: He who forgets his history, will go under. I want to say this evening that I am also following that road of 1914 in the footsteps of my father. He taught me that one should do unto others as you want them to do unto you. This evening we heard of the bitterness which prevailed in the byelection in Klip River. We heard of words which were uttered and which hurt people. But the National Party has still not deviated from the policy of 1912 and 1914. It has been following that policy to this day. But let the hon. members of the United Party tell me how many times they have had to change their policy over these years? They have changed their policy more times than there are letters in the alphabet. This evening I want to say to the few English-speaking persons sitting here, that we shall continue with that policy even if not one Englishman in this country votes for us. In 1914 Gen. Hertzog said that the English-sneaking person would be able to maintain his identity, his language and the privilege of having his own culture, and that the Afrikaner would be able to do the same. We shall continue with this honourable policy even if not one English-speaking person votes for us. The young men on that side of the House have become sleepy. But let us take another look at history and let us come to the years of the rebellion. It is no use forgetting those matters and I do not want to forget my history, because I must derive the stamina for the future from the past of my people. The stamina from the past will strengthen me to continue the struggle in the interests of all race groups in this country. When we follow the course of history, we come to those bitter years, the years of a struggle between brothers, those years which are written in black in the history of our people. But then the United Party appeared under the leadership of Gen. Smuts in the years 1920 to 1923. I have mentioned this before in this House. It is those hon. members who are to-day trying to catch the worker’s vote. If there ever was a black period in the history of the United Party in regard to its relations with the worker, then it was the period from 1920 to 1924, when the Railway workers were deliberately replaced by non-Whites. At that time the United Party deliberately sought to replace the white mine-worker by non-Whites. That is so. It seems to me that the hon. member for Pinetown has now awoken from his dreams. That is why there was a strike in 1922. Thank God the National Party came into power in the year 1924. In that year some of my comrades still sat in gaol, with the death sentence having been imposed on them. They were to be hanged because they had participated in the strike of 1922. Therefore that party should remain silent rather than talk about freedom and human rights. If one goes back in history, it appears that they did not know words like freedom and human rights. They may know them while they are sitting in the Opposition benches, but when the day comes that they govern, they will not know those words.

I continue. Everything which the National Party struggled to attain for the people, such as our national flag which is fluttering on our flagpoles, was opposed by those people from 1927 to 1929. Deny it if it is not true. They opnosed:it. I want to say to them that we are going to get a new flag and I challenge them to fight it again, as they did in the past. It will be a pleasure to fight, because it has always been a pleasure to fight the United Party and its policy. When we have given them a hiding, they say that they created that thing. I am afraid the member for Yeoville will jump up and say that he is in favour of the new flag. I shall also not dispute it either if he says that he was in favour of our beautiful National Anthem. My mother taught me to say a children’s prayer when I had to go to bed at night, but I do not know what he was taught. I think it was probably “God save the King” and in the mornings, when he opened his eyes, the Union Jack fluttered in front of him.

These were the years between 1927 and 1929. The next colourful date in the history of this people, is the year 1933, the time of the coalition. We know what happened in the period from 1933 to 1939. There was the poorwhite problem in this country. Now I want us to examine that history. What did the United Party do to try to solve the poor-white question in this country? Nothing!

We solved it.

When a Maj. Roberts of Vrededorp marched to Pretoria to ask for food for the women in that town, Gen. Smuts put him in gaol. This was not a demonstration which had been arranged as to-day’s demonstrations are arranged. It is that stamina from the past which I received in my life which will never let me change. I do not want to change either. I shall enjoy the prosperity together with my party and my people. If my people demand that I should eat yellow mealie meal porridge, I shall eat it with a happy spirit and I shall remain a Nationalist. I now put it to the United Party that they did nothing until 1939. Then they kicked out Gen. Hertzog because he refused to be plunged into another war which was no concern of ours. I want to state clearly to-night that I have nothing against the people who went to fight for the things in which they believed, but I also had the right to choose to stay out of it. In the past a few persons have had heart cramps here, and I hope it will not happen again this evening, because it is late. To-day the United Party talks about freedom of speech and of human rights, but when they waged a war in the war years, they granted us neither freedom nor rest. It is all very well that they went to fight, but I did not go. They granted us no freedom and no rest. When that party was governing, they told everyone whom they asked to help them, that he was able-bodied and should join up to go to war. I said that I would not go and fight. I owe the British Empire nothing. To this day I have never owed it a penny. But it owes me a great deal. One evening I was accosted about three-quarters of a mile from my home and told that I should not go home because the Knights of the Truth (Waarheidsridders) were waiting for me there. These are things we cannot forget. I notice tihat the hon. member for Turffontein is entering this House and I wish he would take his seat. We suffered in those days. I repeat that I have nothing against the person who went to fight. But it must not be said today that they are the bearers of freedom in the world, It must not be said that their ideas are the best and that they will give security to every race in this country. No, Mr. Chairman, the past has shown me that one cannot trust certain persons. The people of South Africa will never trust them. But that war passed, and in 1948 the National Party came into power. The first thing we did was to pay that war debt. The National Party supporters have not once asked me why we paid that war debt. We paid it because we wanted to start our career without debt, ff there has ever been a challenge to any people in the world, a challenge calling for all the strength of a people, then it is the challenge which faces this people in respect of the future and which it has already tackled in the years since 1948. This is the policy of separate development, according to which each people in this country has the right to continued existence and to its own identity. Then I cannot and dare not and may not say, as the hon. member for King William’s Town said, that I shall sacrifice my identity. I dare not and may not do that, because then I would be committing treason against my people and against my forebears and descendants.

Another U.P. member is entering the House.

Yes, they are slowly coming in now. It is a pity that it is so late.

We also have a task to perform in the future. This task is unique in world history. It is the task of providing the Bantu with his homeland. I want to say to the member for Zululand that they have looked at everything through dark glasses. Theye have never been able to see the light which is shining on that subject. We shall tackle this task with faith, conviction and determination. We shall be determined with a view to the future, and it will succeed. However dark it may appear sometimes, it is, as sure as I am standing here this evening, the only salvation for hon. members on that side and for me. There is no other salvation. To me my political principles are a confession of faith. It is not good enough for me merely to be a Nationalist. To me it is a confession of faith. Together with my church and my religion, it is the No. 1 task in life to me.

Does that apply to me as well?

I have already said that it is a task which rests not only on the Afrikaans-speaking members of this nation. It also rests on the shoulders of the English-speaking members of this nation. The English-speaking people of Natal as well as those of the other provinces will have to cooperate. Otherwise they will be destroyed with me, if this idea cannot be carried through. For this reason, I want to endorse what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said: It does not matter what it costs. It will be carried out. These are tasks which await us in the future. They will be difficult tasks and will present problems to us, but by faith we shall overcome these.

Another task we have is to encourage immigration in this beautiful country of ours with its tremendous development and economic prosperity. This National Party is being attacked and it is being said that we rejected the immigration policy of Smuts. Sir, we merely changed it. The poor old man wanted to throw open the gates. If this had happened, we would have been ploughed under. That was his whole idea. What he could not succeed in doing in politics, he tried to do by means of immigration.

“The good and the bad.”

Yes, “the good and the bad.” We said that we would screen immigrants. It is understandable that there was in fact a slow influx of immigrants during the years from 1948 to 1960. We experienced problems. We had to create employment for those people. We had to obtain housing for them. After all, such people must have all the facilities which our own citizens have.

You still do not have enough houses.

My friend, if I still had your years, I would have liked to drink from a bottle. From 1960 onwards we obtained immigrants from our countries of origin. They were the best, screened immigrants who fitted in with this people. We owe the Department of Immigration a debt of gratitude for the task which it is performing, and which sometimes attracts tremendous criticism. I want to say to the Minister of Immigration: Continue with that task. It is a good task.

There is another monument which has been built by this National Party. This monument is housing. I want to mention the housing for Whites specifically, but there is also the housing for Bantu. We had to clear up the chaos which existed in 1948, because those hon. members always said, “Let things develop”, and then hoped that the Lord would bless them. We had to clear up that chaos. We had to erect buildings and clear up Bantu townships. They allowed chaos to develop because there was “a war on”.

Who developed Soweto in Johannesburg?

Keep quiet, my friend. You wore nappies in those years. Sir, we cleaned up those cities to the best of our ability. We are still continuing with that tremendous task. A huge task still lies ahead of us, namely to provide for the needs of every White, Bantu, Coloured and Indian. We shall look after every group to the best of our ability, as the money becomes available. However, the time has also arrived for those various races to start working for their own futures. The Creator probably placed them on this earth at the same time as me. I think the time has arrived for the various population groups which I mentioned a moment ago, to take off their jackets and set to work. They must realize that this country is also their fatherland and that they can help us in many respects.

I have now spoken about the history of the National Party; members in the backbenches were not present at the time. One grows to love the history of this National Party because it is one’s own ideas which were born of a people. One cannot exchange it, even if one wants to. One cannot place one’s identity on the altar and sell it for a mess of pottage, because it cannot be sold. It cannot be bought. From its earliest days, this National Party has erected monuments for this people and its descendants. We erected a monument such as I scor, which was opposed by those members. Let them deny this to-night. At this stage a third Iscor is already being planned. This National Party also established a Sasol to produce our own petroleum. I only wish that some of those United Party friends of mine will make more use of the Free State petrol. If they do that, they may perhaps catch fire sooner or later.

The greatest task which this Government has performed, was to bring about peace and prosperity in this country. There is peace and quiet among the low-paid workers of every race group. Can hon. members tell me if there are uprisings among the Bantu peoples? Do hon. members know what an old Bantu said to me one day when we had to move him from Sophiatown He said to me: “Sir, I cannot understand it. There my family and I slept under five corrugated-iron sheets. Here the State is giving me a beautiful house. Now these people come to me and say that I should strike. I do not understand it. Tell me what I should tell my Indunas”. Sir, his name was Mjikalane. That Bantu is now living in peace. This is also the case with each of them. This is the peace and quiet which this National Party has brought about.

It was due to a United Party city council.

Sir, that hon. member must keep quiet about a United Party city council. He is not even a decent United Party member yet. He must still grow up, and when grows up, I hope he will become converted. This Government has also brought about peace and quiet among the Indian people and among the Coloured people. We know that there is agitation, but these people support the policy of the National Party. They know that it offers the only future plan and salvation for them. There is no other way, because we want them to develop in their own identity. They must build themselves up so that they themselves may govern their own people one day. The National Party has done this.

In conclusion, I want to say this evening that Afrikaans-speaking persons who followed the road of a Botha or a Smuts, followed an easy road in the beginning. It stretched ahead like a beautiful tarred road, but that road ended in a desert. In contrast to that, the road of J. B. M. Hertzog was narrow. It meandered through the history of this people, but it kept right on course like a golden thread. It meandered across rivers, through valleys and over mountains. Since the referendum in 1961, that road has become a beautiful, large tarred road on which to drive. This is the road of the National Party; follow it.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that by 8 o’clock this morning the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam already contained 40,000 morgen feet of water. This was made possible by the good rains in the catchment area of the Orange River. It is expected that the peak of a flow of 20,000 cusecs which is on its way to the dame site will increase the amount of stored water to 61,650 morgen feet within the next 18 hours. This means that sufficient water is already available to give consumers below the dam the prospect of an assured water supply, which together with the normal replenishment will bring stability to the economic activities along the river.

I am giving these details to the House to indicate this day as the day on which the Orange River Development project achieved its object for the first time, although the first benefits will only be felt to a limited extent by the country at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is the result of recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon. members know, these recommendations have already been agreed to by this House and by the Senate. I should like to indicate at this stage that I shall in the Committee Stage move an amendment to Item 17 of the schedule.

We support the Second Reading of this Bill. As the Minister indicated, this Bill gives legislative effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance that the payment, in terms of the schedule, of benefits to beneficiaries enumerated there will be expeditiously dealt with once this Bill has been assented to by the State President. In the schedule there are beneficiaries whose petitions were tabled already in 1969—for instance, items Nos. 5 and 6 of the schedule are in respect of petitions actually presented in February, 1969. In the circumstances it is important that the benefits accruing to these petitioners be paid expeditiously after this Bill has been assented to.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Since the adoption of the recommendations of the Select Committee my attention has been drawn to the fact that in the case of Item No. 17, the leave gratuity paid to Mr. Juyn in respect of his first contract of service was based on a salary of R6,500 per year. He was appointed at a salary of R4,500 and the leave gratuity which will become payable to him in respect of this new contract of service will therefore have to be based on this salary. This will mean that he will now be entitled to a leave gratuity which will be R1,058.63 less than that which was paid to him previously.

Apart from that, he will also lose the compound interest he will have to pay on the amount of R3,370.12, if this item is not amended. The purpose of this petition is to give Mr. Juyn the opportunity to combine his previous pensionable service with his present service so that he can qualify for a pension when retiring. The leave gratuity paid to him was due to him in respect of a contract of service which had expired and he therefore became entitled to the payment of the gratuity in terms of the agreement. We find a similar provision in the Public Service. The new contract of service only makes provision for the payment of a leave gratuity in respect of his latest term of service. Consequently he will suffer considerable financial loss if the matter is not rectified now. This fact was unfortunately overlooked when the report of the Select Committee was agreed to here. However, I am convinced that hon. members do not want to prejudice this person in this way and will therefore be prepared to rectify the matter even at this late stage.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I just want to say to the hon. member for Umbilo that the point which he raised will receive my immediate attention.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here for the welfare of society and the just government of men, and I wonder how it is possible for the hon. member for Stilfontein who spoke here last night and for various other hon. members opposite, like the hon. member for Namaqualand, to reconcile their consciences with the statement that we are here for the welfare of society and the just government of men. What we heard here last night was nothing else but a going back to something which I thought had been lost and gone forever in the politics of South Africa. I want to say that Dr. Albert Hertzog would have been proud of that hon. member and the speech he made yesterday. I am referring to the hon. member for Stilfontein. The low type of buffoonery we had to put up with here last night makes me wonder whether the Nationalist Party are serious in taking part in this debate and whether we will have to put up with this sort of attitude on the part of the Nationalist Party in the coming provincial elections. I want to say that as a fairly young English-speaking South African I had hoped that this sort of thing was dead and gone, and I say that as far as my people are concerned we cannot live with that kind of attitude in South Africa any longer. [Interjections.] I am very pleased the hon. members are laughing. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to call his people to heel. He can do it with a word or a whistle or a flick of his fingers, but let us get back to the issues which are at stake in South Africa and do not let us have this smokescreen being put up which is the last resort of the destitute. [Interjections.] Sir, that is the type of buffoonery I was referring to. This is exactly the point I am trying to make, that we want to debate the issues facing South Africa, and I am appealing to the hon. the Prime Minister to see to it that these issues are raised and debated.

The first issue I want to deal with is the question of White leadership in South Africa. Sir, why is it that when we talk about White leadership the whole of the Nationalist Party goes pale? Is that not the destiny of the white man? [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Meneer, is the hon. member for Carletonville permitted continually to call an hon. member on this side of the House a coward?

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech. Did the hon. member for Carletonville use the word “coward”?

I said that he was a coward at Klip River, not here. [Interjections.]

Order!

When we talk about white leadership in South Africa there seems to be an idea in the minds of the Nationalist Party that there is an alternative and I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he sees this alternative to white leadership as being Black leadership.

But you are talking nonsense, man.

What this Nationalist Party is doing is to turn its back on Black South Africa. The whole policy of apartheid as expressed by the Nationalist Party with its policy of separate development and of forcing the black people of South Africa into separate states is nothing less than a denial of what I regard to be the mission of the white man here in South Africa. That is to maintain here the Western Christian civilization of which we are the last remaining bulwark in Africa. That is what we are here for; that is our task and our mission, but what we have here is a Nationalist Party which is going out of its way to force apart and to force away from the leadership of the white man, the black communities of South Africa. Sir, the alternative to white leadership in South Africa is not black leadership but Red leadership and the sooner the Nationalist Party recognizes that that is the alternative to the control of the white man over the whole of South Africa, the better it is going to be for Black South Africa and White South Africa. Because you are forcing them apart. You are turning your backs on Black South Africa with the negativism that apartheid typifies, because it says: Go in your own direction; go as far as you like; go away and leave the white man in his own little enclave; leave the white man alone and find your own values in the world.

What we are engaged in is a fight for the control of the minds of Black Africa and of Black South Africa. What we are seeking is to so grasp the imagination of Black South Africa that they will fall in with tis in the struggle to contain and to control communism in Africa. Surely that is our purpose; surely that is what we have to do when the lights are going out in Africa one after the other, when we see the claws of communism stretched out to strike deep into Africa. Surely what we have to do is to ensure that the bulwark which Western Christian civilization represents—not white civilization, Sir, but the civilization of the West which we have planted here, which we have grafted on to the alien stock of Africa—persists in South Africa, and surely that can only persist here in South Africa if the white man maintains his control over the whole of South Africa. Sir, the hand of White South Africa is the shield of Black South Africa, and what the Nationalist Party is intending to do is nothing else but to withdraw the hand of the white man and to turn loose, into the limbo of Black Africa, the black population of our country. Because, Sir, in no single case has any single member on the other side been able to persuade or convince us that any practical steps are being taken which are leading the black people to some kind of reasonable, realistic hope for a permanent future in their own areas.

What we are doing is to invest money and to create facilities; we are doing all kinds of things, but what is the purpose of the investment of the Nationalist Party? Are they investing in progress in those Bantu areas or are they investing in poverty? Have we had anything from any single member of the Nationalist Party during the whole of this Session which leads any thinking person in South Africa to believe that you can create and that you have created in 22 years of power, in the black portions of South Africa, a kind of livelihood that can sustain the present population and grow with the growing population explosion of those areas? Surely, Sir, this is the problem. The hon. the Prime Minister himself, in an earlier debate made mention of the countries in Africa and said that all they had to offer was their labour. He then made a remark which I hope was a joke—and not a very cynical remark—when he said that it might be better to give the Bantustans independence because then their citizens would work a lot harder in South Africa in case they were sent home.

You are quite stupid.

Sir, I am quoting what I understood the Prime Minister to say. If I am “quite stupid” then I must look to the source from which the words came. But if this is the attitude of the Nationalist Party, that they are going to turn loose the Bantu states without creating something there which is going to give them something more than merely their labour to sell …

You are talking utter nonsense.

Let the hon. member for Brakpan tell me where …

Where do we want to turn them loose?

The whole purpose of the Nationalist Party is to implement separation. The ideal, according to the Minister of Information, is total apartheid. This is the ideal of the Nationalist Party; this is what they are trying to put into practice in South Africa. If that is not turning loose the Bantu people, what is it?

You do not know the South African’s way of life.

Sir, I know “die Suid-Afrikaner se leefwyse” as well as that hon. member. I know perfectly well what has been happening in our country. What has happened is that the white man has reached out his hand in South Africa to uplift the black population. We have reached out our hand; we have built up in the urban areas a society among them, which is the only place in Africa where they can hope for some kind of stability and permanence and civilized living in the future.

You are living in a banana jungle.

Sir, that is a very interesting remark; it is an insult to the people of Natal. I am quite sure that they will be happy to know that the hon. member says that they live in a banana jungle. That is a very pleasant remark.

From what jungle does he come?

The point that I wish to make to the hon. the Prime Minister and to other hon. members over there is this: What is happening in our country, right now before our very eyes, as a result of the presence of the white man in South Africa, is that we have broken down the tribal ties of nearly 8 million Bantu people. We have settled them permanently in urban areas; we have given them a vision of life which they will find nowhere else in Africa. We have created a revolution in Africa, the only real revolution that has any chance of persisting. We have broken down the African way of life. We have given them something else. Everything the Nationalist Party is trying to do is to reverse that process, to turn it back. I say the survival of the white man and the black man in South Africa on any kind of civilized, reasonable, democratic basis depends on the co-operation that we are enjoying to-day between white South Africa arid black South Africa acting through the economy of South Africa. This is a source of strength, the only source of strength that the white man has. When we see a Nationalist Party which goes out of its way to attempt to break down what we have built up, which attempts now to create separate institutions, separate countries, separate growth rates and separate economies for every single group among the Bantu population, to force them away to something else, then I believe that this Nationalist Party has embarked on a road on which there is no return for either white South Africa or black South Africa.

I make the point again that this country of ours is the prime target for the Communist Party. This Government is laying us open and bare to an attack from the Communist nations because they are withdrawing the shield of the black man, the shield of black South Africa, namely the hand of the white man. That is what is happening in our country. What we are having instead of a debate on issues, is a going back by the hon. member for Stilfontein and others. The tribal drum is being beaten again. We are hearing all the old pre-1914-’48 stories. We had a “Koeks” Tour of the history of South Africa. The only thing the hon. member for Stilfontein forgot yesterday was Slagtersnek. But I am sure he will remember that before the provincial election comes along, that is if he is given a chance.

Why do you not pack up and go?

Where am I to go to? It is amazing, but when a person disagrees with the Nationalist Party they believe you have no place and no right to live in South Africa. This is the typical attitude that you have from hon. members like those vociferous members on the other side sitting there gibbering like simians. This is the kind of attitude we get from them. As soon as you disagree with them, all you get is that kind of abuse, and vilification and a questioning of one’s own motives and one’s interest in South Africa. I do not believe for one single instant that what this Nationalist Party is doing is the right thing for South Africa. There is a growing number of people in this country who believe the same.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister if black South Africa has to turn its back on white South Africa, where is it going to look? In what direction can it look? Where is the inspiration to-day in the world outside? What is the force that is building up to-day against the Western world? What is the alternative offered in any one of the countries of Africa mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister where they have nothing to offer but their labour. What is the alternative offered to those people? Can democracy survive? And, if so, how does it survive? Is there enough money in the world to develop even one of those countries to some reasonable standard of democracy and stability? The alternative for those countries is the Communist system which seizes control of the lives of every single member of those countries and organizes their daily lives down to every single thought that they think.

What about Botswana and Lesotho?

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing Botswana and Lesotho in a very, very early stage and they have the tremendous advantage of living next-door to white South Africa. The point was made that there was very nearly a take-over by a Communistic-orientated Party in Lesotho. It was a matter of a couple of votes that prevented it. It was a very close shave. What are you trying to create in South Africa if you are trying to perpetuate here what is happening in Africa to the north? Unless this Government goes out of its way to develop Bantu areas what are we doing? To-day, 22 years after the Nationalist Party came to power, I defy anybody to say here that they are developed to a point where they have even reached blast-off stage. They have not even reached square one. This is the legacy of the Nationalist Party and this is the issue which should be debated in the coming provincial election. The issue will be what the Nationalist Party has been doing during these 22 years and how they have been talking and talking and building this elaborate structure, the paper tiger of apartheid which means nothing when one comes down to basic brass tacks. What have they achieved in the way of development? What is their ideal of leadership for the Bantu people in this country? Surely, what we have to do, as I have said, is to retain the imagination and the control of the black people. We have to know that they will associate themselves with us. because our mutual interests are such that we can offer them something more than Communism can offer them and black Africa can offer them. We can offer them secuirty and stability and a sound and safe future, which we have been doing right up till now, in spite of all the talk the Nationalist Party has put up about implementing apartheid and creating homelands, separate development and a new way of life, etc. All that junk which has been spoken about this policy about the Nationalist Party is simply not real.

May I ask the hon. member a question? What about Malawi? Malawi is not Communistic. How can the hon. member explain that?

If the hon. member will remember, there was a revolution in Malawi which President Banda had to suppress. Terrorists were operating in Malawi and he had to chase one of them over the border. Malawi is a country which has strong ties with South Africa and I believe that we will see to it, because it is in our interests. [Interjections.] This is part of the outward policy of the Prime Minister. Part of that policy was the improvement of the relations between English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people, which I think was affected so badly here yesterday afternoon. I wish to make the appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister not to be put off by the talk of his members and that he should continue on the course he followed when he set out to improve the relationship between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people in this country. Now the hon. member asks what about Malawi? Here we have a country which is at the very basic level of development. There are other countries in Africa which are far worse off and where the population explosion is swallowing every single thing which would give any hope for the future.

Is that the Government’s fault as well?

It is difficult to have an intelligent debate with some of these hon. members in this House. I am putting a point to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party in regard to what and how they are going to guarantee the security and the future of white South Africa and black South Africa if they persist in the policy which they are following, this policy which insists on dividing, sundering and separating the common interests which white and black South Africa have in maintaining stability, order, progress and development in this country.

The hon. member for Mooi River said at the beginning of his speech, and I hope I have not misunderstood him, that he did not see his way clear to remain forever under a National Party Government in South Africa. Who is begging him to stay here? Why does he not go? No one will beg him to stay here, and after that speech his party will welcome his departure. Then he speaks of “the just government of men”! I have been a member of this Parliament for 17 years, and for a further 10 years I was a member of the Provincial Councils of the Cape and the Transvaal, as well as a member of the Executive Committee. Then he speaks of a “just government of men”! I have never before attended a session or fought an election in which so many dirty gossip stories were spread as in this one. They brand every member of this Cabinet a liar and a person who is making money in a deceitful way. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is absent, accused this side of the House of abusing our position in order to make money. He did not have the courage to come forward here and make a single accusation against any one person. He is the greatest political coward South Africa has ever seen.

Order! No, the hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “coward”.

I withdraw it, Sir. I have never in my life seen smaller political courage than that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is the person who posed here as a gentleman and a decent politician and then he comes forward with those mean accusations without furnishing a shred of evidence.

Come to the De Wet case.

What did the hon. member for Transkei say?

Come to the De Wet case.

What did the hon. member say? [Interjections.] He says such stupid things that he does not want to repeat them three times. He repeats them twice, yes, but not three times. I do not blame him.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked whether we saw in the United Party’s policy of white leadership the only alternative to black leadership. My reply to him is, under their policy, without any doubt! I say without any doubt that their policy of so-called white leadership must lead to black leadership in South Africa. They have been speaking about one matter during the past few days, i.e. what the non-white population of South Africa will be in the year 2000. They posed the question. “What will the numbers of the Coloured, the Indian and the Bantu populations be?” We have set the pattern of what we are trying to do. But the number of non-Whites in the year 2000 will, after all, be the same under their policy as under our policy, with the one exception that we regard them as separate peoples and want to settle them in separate lands. We want to give them self-government. But what do these people offer them? All of the 20 million black people who will be here in the year 2000 will, in terms of their policy, be in a position of complete inferiority.

Cheap labour.

Yes, cheap labour is the only thing they are looking for. They will keep them here in an economically, politically and socially inferior position. What a fertile breeding ground for communism does this not constitute! The hon. member said our policy would lead to a revolution. What better atmosphere can be created for communism than that which can be created under their policy? Then the hon. member referred to the independent states, for example, the Transkei and other Bantu territories after they had gained independence, and said they would constitute a great danger to South Africa. Now I am asking the hon. member for Mooi River why Lesotho’s independence does not constitute a danger to us?

Who say so?

I shall tell him who says so. The United Party says so. When the late Dr. Malan asked us to comply with the appendix to the South Africa Constitution, i.e. to annex the Protectorates, who opposed it? Strauss and that party opposed it!

Then that hon. member says that our Bantu territories have not even reached the “blastoff point”. Has Lesotho or Botswana reached the blast-off point? I am now asking the Leader of the Opposition or any member on that side, whether any one of them objected in the least to those territories gaining complete independence? Did they make any representations to the British Government for those territories not to become independent? No, Sir, they lauded and praised them for having done so. When the late Dr. Verwoerd asked that England should place those territories under us so that we could lead them to independence, the Opposition opposed that. It is all very well if those territories do become independent, but the only thing is that the National Party Government should not grant them their independence. Then they still think the people accept those stories. For that reason I say I have never attended a session in which there has been so much defamation of character as in this session. To accuse a worthy person such as Ben Schoeman of being a liar and then to refuse to suffer the consequences of having done so! That hon. member accused me of being a liar. But he is afraid to introduce a motion for the appointment of a Select Committee in this regard. I challenge him to proceed with his silly libel actions. In this way they also tried to run down the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. The hon. the Minister of Mines, too, was attacked in this way. Then we heard of the hon. the Minister of Mines and Die Beeld and Mr. Oppenheimer. Subsequently we had the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s false accusation of money being made on this side of the House by illegitimate means. Now they are talking about something which took place ten years ago and they are raking this up. Because they realize that their policy has failed completely they continue with this defamation of character, the most shocking I have ever come across in my entire political career. It is no use the hon. member for Pinelands sitting there grinning. He, as one of the decent people in this House, ought to be most ashamed of having participated in this.

I want to return to the hon. member for Green Point. He criticized my Department. I want to tell him that it is the easiest thing in the word to say that there is a housing crisis, without furnishing proof that it does in fact exist. Why does he not analyse the housing position in South Africa before saying there is a housing crisis in South Africa? The Leader of the Opposition said: “Young married couples cannot get homes”. Where are they living then? In the mountain or in the woods? Bring me a young married couple who does not have a house or a place to live. Sir, I am very sorry that the hon. member for Maitland is not present. Does the hon. member for Green Point agree with his Leader that there are young couples who cannot get dwellings?

Yes.

Are there any of them in his constituency?

They cannot get their own houses.

Are there any of them in his constituency?

Yes.

Why has he never brought this to my attention or to that of my Department or regional office? [Interjections.] Have the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (District) or Hillbrow brought one case to our attention? The only hon. member who in fact did so was the hon. member for Durban (Point), and everyone of the cases he brought to our attention has now been accommodated.

No.

I challenge the hon. member to get up now and to tell me who has not been accommodated. The hon. member for Maitland told us of the hundreds of homeless people in his constituency. I then challenged him to bring them to me. The hon. member for Maitland is one of their most able men. He is one of their best organizers. He levelled the charge at my Department that there was a large-scale shortage of houses and dwelling units in his constituency. Two months ago I challenged him to bring those cases to my attention. Sir, do you know how many I have had to date? Only six. Not one of those six were on the waiting list of any of the municipalities in the Peninsula. They were not on the waiting list of the divisional council. Neither were they on the waiting list of the Department of Community Development. It is so easy to say that there is a housing crisis. It is just as easy to say that taxes are too high.

May I ask a question? Why did the Minister appoint the Niemand Commission if there was no housing shortage?

Sir, the Niemand Commission did not inquire into a housing shortage. It had nothing to do with that. It inquired into the prices of erven in South Africa. Those were its terms of reference. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point: If he is a good member of Parliament, and if he tells me that there are people in his constituency who are not properly accommodated, why has he not addressed one single request to my office?

Ask your own Secretary whether I have done so.

Sir, my Secretary has given me more than enough information in this regard. Not a single complaint has come from that hon. member. He does not have any complaints in his constituency either. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition and when he gave a summary here yesterday, he said the United Party should be put into power. He said that if that were to be done pensions would be improved, medical services would be cheaper, houses would be more plentiful and that their rent would be lower. His next sentence was: “And the sales duty would be abolished”. The electorate of South Africa simply does not listen to the nonsense of the Opposition any more. Of course we are faced with a housing problem. We are faced with a housing problem just as any other country in the world is faced with a housing problem. However, there is no crisis in South Africa. The most serious thing there is in South Africa is a very lively demand for houses. I say with the greatest conviction that in no country in the Western world are greater and more successful plans being made or tackled than in the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member for Green Point must listen now.

The hon. the Minister himself spoke of a crisis in the building industry.

I spoke of a crisis in the building industry, but not of a housing crisis. For that reason I have applied building control and I have done that in such a way that more houses and flats are being built to-day than have been built in many years. The hon. member does not know of the difference between a crisis in the building industry and a housing crisis.

There is a shortage.

Yes, there is a shortage because we inherited your mess. That is why there is a shortage. Then the hon. member for Green Point says the private sector is building less and less. I have the figures here. He must not quote out of date figures here, ones he obtained from statistics of a year or more ago. Here are the latest figures: 13,593 houses were completed in 1968 by the private sector. In the year 1969 15,142 were completed and during the first five months of this year 10,200 were completed, a figure which indicates that they intend building more than 20,000 this year.

Where do you get those figures?

These figures were supplied to me by the Department.

The figures of the Department of Statistics are different.

Surely the hon. member knows that he is talking nonsense. What are the figures of flat units? In 1968 R56 million was spent on private flats. In 1969 it was R38 million. For the first five months of this year this figure already amounts to R34 million which goes to prove that this building control is achieving success in South Africa. The hon. member for Green Point says there is a scarcity of labour in the building industry and that I have laid the blame for that at the door of the Ministers of Bantu Administration and of Labour. He is talking the biggest nonsense in the world.

The hon. the Minister said so himself.

What I said was that there was a scarcity of labour in the building industry, but that I personally could do nothing about it. It is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration who is applying influx control. It is the hon. the Minister of Labour who is controlling job reservation in conjunction with the trade unions. I did not say that I was criticizing their policy. I accept full responsibility for that policy. I want to challenge the hon. member for Green Point. Is it the policy of his party that the black people will be allowed to do any skilled work in the building industry?

What is happening in Johannesburg at the present time?

I am asking whether it is the policy of his party that the black people will be allowed to do any skilled labour? No, they will not reply.

What is your policy in Johannesburg?

Please don’t talk nonsense! Do not give vent to stupidity in this House! I am asking a very clear and simple question. My question is whether it is the policy of the United Party that black people will be allowed to do any skilled work in the building industry. What does the hon. member for Durban (Point) say to that? After all, he is the only honest man over there. Is the hon. member in favour of black people being allowed to do any skilled labour in the building industry?

After negotiations with the trade unions.

That is precisely what is happening to-day. I shall tell them what their policy is. Their policy is an unchecked influx of black labour into every economic sector in South Africa. [Interjections.] Very well, yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pleaded … [Interjections.] Do they want to deny now that yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pleaded “for complete mobility of labour in South Africa”.

Yes.

He says “yes”. But how can he reconcile that with influx control? If there is “complete mobility” surely one cannot impose restrictions on the people at the same time.

I did not use it in tha* sense. Apparently you did not listen. What you say now is complete nonsense.

I listened attentively enough. Very well. In that case I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: Are you in favour, as your party said in the past, of Bantu being allowed to sell their labour on the best market? Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not very communicative. Why does he not reply now?

If it means the abolition of influx control, I do not agree with that at all. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville is the man who said the black labourer should be able to sell his labour on the best market in South Africa. In this regard I just want to say the following, and I am going to say this from platform to platform in the provincial elections: Those hon. members, the hon. member for Hillbrow in particular, are in favour of uncontrolled influx of black labour into white South Africa. [Interjections.] It is absolutely true. They go even further— the Bantu should be able to come in on a family basis and should be able to acquire rights of ownership in white South Africa. This is what I am going to say.

I challenge you to prove that.

Very well. Is the hon. member for Hillbrow in favour of free movement of Bantu labour in South Africa?

Not exceeding the bounds.

Then why did your Leader say that yesterday?

Mr. Speaker …

No—sit down; sit down you, I am speaking now.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, is an hon. member not obliged to …

Mr. Speaker, I shall not allow myself to be interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am not prepared to reply to any of his questions.

Order! Will the hon. the Minister please resume his seat!

On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister not obliged to accept what an hon. member says he has said in this House?

What? Mr. Speaker, this is the most stupid point of order I have heard during my 17 years in this House.

Order! The hon. the Minister must accept the word of honour of an hon. member. If an hon. member states that he has made a certain statement in this House, the hon. the Minister must accept it.

I shall accept it, Mr. Speaker. But I want to add that if he has not said that in this House then he has done so at his congresses. [Interjections.] Yes, he said so at his congresses. And now they must come forward with these stunts in an attempt to sidetrack one. They said they were in favour of the Bantu selling their labour on the best market. [Interjections.] Now I am asking the hon. member for Hillbrow: Is he in favour of the Bantu selling their labour on the best market?

I have already replied to that.

He says he has already replied to that! The National Party has a completely different answer to the labour shortage in South Africa when it comes to the building industry. Its answer is more and more mechanization. In co-operation with the private sector we have already succeeded in effecting a great measure of mechanization. For example, Brick or produced 16 million bricks per year with 600 black labourers and after they had erected an automated factory they were able to reduce that labour force to 35. I want to refer again to the house recently built at Nigel, of which the hon. member for Green Point said with contempt that it was a “prefabricated house”. I have seen that house, and the hon. member for Green Point might consider himself lucky if he could live in a house like that. This, therefore, is our approach to this problem of solving the shortage of labour in the building industry.

Let us now consider the real housing position in South Africa. I think hon. members will agree with me that the forecasts of the Building Research Institute ought to be better than theirs. What is the forecast of that Institute? Their forecast is that for the period from 1965-’70 we shall need an average of 21,000 dwelling units per year for Whites in order to cope with new births, immigration and the replacement of buildings which will have to be demolished. What have we been able to accomplish over the past five years? Local authorities, the Department of Community Development and the private sector have succeeded to build an average of 26,500 houses per year over this period—in other words, 5,000 per year more than the forecast of the Building Research Institute. Let us now take a look at the position in the three areas with the largest concentration of people in South Africa. Let us, in the first place, take a look at the Witwatersrand/Pretoria/Vaal Triangle area. The forecast here is that just under 11,000 houses per year would be needed over the years 1970-’73. But tenders have already been accepted and contracts have already been awarded in respect of 16,500 houses per year. Then there is the Cape Peninsula where the forecast is 3,600 houses per year as against contracts which have already been awarded for the building of 3,300. I am not satisfied with this and I am giving this my further attention. It is estimated that 4,000 units per year will be needed for Durban; over against that tenders have already been accepted for the building of 10,892. So much as regards the housing position in the three largest complexes in South Africa. It is estimated that the need for the next three years will come to 18,500 houses, whereas 30,600 will be provided—undeniable proof that we are catching up on the backlog which exists, a backlog we inherited from hon. members opposite.

What percentage of these houses constitutes houses which the man in the street can afford?

If the hon. member wants to know what we are doing for the man in the street, I can just point out to him that we lend money for houses for the aged at a rate of interest of one-twentieth; for our sub-economic group i.e. people with an income of R100 and less, we provide money to local authorities at a rate of interest of ¾ per cent. It is not a question of the demand exceeding the supply. Fortunately, applications for sub-economic funds are decreasing in number all the time. This points to a rising in our standards. Then there is the group with two children and an income of R225 per month. Houses are being offered for sale to them at the payment of a monthly instalment of R35 to R40—not even 20 per cent of their income. And yet the hon. member for Green Point maintains that they have to spend from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of their income on housing. Well, if a person spends 30 per cent of his income on housing, he does so on his own responsibility and that does not concern the State. People in the group we cater for, i.e. people with an income of less than R5,000 per year, can all get houses at a cost not exceeding 20 per cent of their income.

And yet you stopped building in Pietermaritzburg.

The hon. member need not say, anything about Pietermaritzburg. Why does he come here to complain? The City Council of Pietermaritzburg wrote to me the other day to say they were grateful because we were giving them more assistance than they were able to use for building houses.

Did you stop the building programme?

There is no such thing as a building programme which has been stopped—the hon. member is talking nonsense, absolute nonsense. There is no single building scheme which has been stopped.

Let us now take a look at Coloured housing in South Africa. In Cape Town, Paarl and Stellenbosch 40,843 houses have been programmed over a period of six years, i.e. for the three years which have just passed and for the three years to come. Therefore, only in respect of these three areas housing is being provided for more than a ¼ million Coloureds here in the Western Cape, in the Greater Peninsula area. Take the question of resettlement, to which hon. members objected such a great deal, and the question of group areas, to which they objected so very strongly, and yet they maintain that they are in favour of separate residential areas. They are in favour of separate residential areas as long as one does not create a separate residential area. As soon as one creates a separate residential area they are up in arms against it. Then they and their newspapers are up in arms against the Government, as is now evident in the case of District Six. Is the hon. member for Pinelands, who is sitting there looking at me, prepared to help me to accommodate the Coloureds of District Six elsewhere? You see, Sir, one gets no reply from them when it comes to practical problems, problems one has to deal with from day to day. He is not even prepared to tell me that he is willing to assist in getting our Coloureds of District Six, from that mess, from that slum, which is District Six, to assist in getting them from that mess and placing them in proper houses as we have next to the road not far from here at Windermere and all those places.

What about Elsies River?

Now he is asking me about Elsies River. We are clearing up Elsies River. All that I want to ask of the hon. member for Pinelands is to assist me in settling the Coloureds of District Six and Elsies River elsewhere. I hope he will speak after me; then he can tell me what the position is. At this stage, during the past number of years, we have succeeded in resettling more than one-half of the Coloured families of the Peninsula. We have already resettled 15,000 and 10,000 still have to be resettled. In Port Elizabeth we have already resettled 3,300 and another 3,000 still have to be resettled. Of the Indians in Durban we have already resettled 13,733 families and we still have to resettle another 7,288. In Johannesburg we have resettled 2,500 and we still have to resettle another 1,400, which is nothing short of a complete miracle which this Government has performed over the past eight to ten years. This is what the Government occupies itself with. These are the positive things with which we occupy ourselves, to which we give our attention but what do we get from that side of this House? Only disparagement and gossip stories as I have never heard in politics. I iust want to tell them this. I am 56 years old, and when a man is 56 years old he is no longer 46 years old, but I shall wear out my feet in the provincial elections to expose them as they have never been exposed before.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development stood up in this House in his customary way and made a great to-do about the good work of his Department. Now, one knows why the hon. the Minister acted in this wav. It is because he is one of the Ministers who is most frequently criticized by his own people about the question of housing in South Africa. The hon. the Minister cannot forget, and we shall not let him forget it either, that a few years ago, before his own congress in Port Elizabeth, he was criticized in this way, and not by an ordinary delegate, but by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North), so much so that the hon. the Minister had to stand up and tell that hon. member that he was irresponsible; there is no such housing shortage in South Africa. That hon. Minister will remember well that just after this election an article by Dawie appeared in Die Burger, and Dawie laid down certain priorities which the Government ought to give its attention to, the so-called overhauling that should be done. The making available of more houses in South Africa by that Minister was amongst the first three priorities Die Burger itself laid down.

It was the second.

It was the second. It therefore does not surprise me that the Minister carried on here the way he did. Sir, let us now just listen to the type of argument he puts forward. He says that the United Party’s policy of “so-called” white leadership must result in black leadership; that is one point he makes, and then, just after that, he says that the United Party wants to keep the black people politically and economically inferior in South Africa. That hon. Minister is always so astute in politics, and what happens? He stands up here and within five minutes contradicts himself about what is allegedly the ultimate object of the United Party’s policy. The hon. the Minister can make a choice; he himself may choose which of the two will be the United Party’s eventual course. The hon. gentleman knows that our policy of white leadership over South Africa as a whole is the policy that the people of South Africa want, a policy under which justice and justness will prevail in respect of the non-white races of South Africa, but under which, at the same time, we can preserve the Western way of life of the Whites in South Africa. But what does the hon. the Minister say further? He says that in his 56 years of life, and his 26 years in politics, he has never heard so much gossip as he did in this election and during this Session.

And you are the biggest gossip-monger.

There we have it again. All this gossip emanates from the United Party! I want to quote to the hon. member from Die Beeld of 9th June, 1968, two years ago. One would say it is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Yeoville or I myself speaking here, broadcasting this gossip to the world. But it comes from none other than that hon. Minister’s bench-mate, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs (translation)—

But listen now, Sir—

That does not come from the United Party members—

I quote the following paragraph—

Then one paragraph further on—

That hon. gentleman who made these accusations disappeared too suddenly, and is no longer here to hear how his own people, his own newspapers, began with the gossip in South Africa. I just want to mention another example. I have here a cutting from Dagbreek and Landstem of 20th October, 1968. The heading of this report is as follows “Beware, you are going to catch it in the neck”, and the sub-heading is “M.P.s with directorships”. The report reads as follows (translation)—

That was two years ago—

That is not what the United Party says; their own newspapers proclaim it. The report goes further—

Then it is the United Party that is spreading these stories! But I want to mention a further example. Here I have a cutting from Dagbreek of 19th July of this year.

This year?

Just the other day. On 17th July, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs announced the Saldanha scheme. Just two days after that the following headline appeared on the front page of Dagbreek: “M.P.s subjected to gossip about Saldanha”. Below that there was the sub-heading “Threaten with action”. Is it possible for the United Party, within two days, to have spread such a gossip campaign throughout South Africa, so that two days afterwards this leader could appear in Dagbreekl No, it is their own people who are responsible for this. They themselves gossip about each other more than anyone else in South Africa. It is their own newspapers that announce this kind of story. Then the hon. gentleman comes along to this House and says the United Party is responsible for this gossip.

But this is surely how we have come to know the hon. the Minister of Community Development. The best way he can settle a matter is to be light-hearted about it, to make a joke about everything, and not to notice the problems of the South African people at large. But there is one thing that was proved during this session. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly said that the Government is out of touch with the South African people. But that is not the only aspect in connection with that Government that was proved during this session. It has also been proved that this Government does not have the solution to South Africa’s problems either. During the election campaign the United Party told the people: Here are your problems. You know them as well as we do. You have inflation problems, you have labour problems. What can be done about the matter? With that in mind the United Party entered this session. Did this Government, during this session, make use of its chance to solve those problems? I read in one of the newspapers about some hon. Minister or other speaking after the election, not only of overhauling that had to be done, but also about the Government having to pull up its socks. I now want to tell the hon. Prime Minister that he must give every member of the Cabinet a pair of suspenders so that their socks can remain in position.

Here we have a question such as the labour question, for example, which the Government cannot be unfamiliar with. The Government was warned years ago in this connection. I remember how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the past twelve years I have been sitting here, quoted one business leader after another, one economist after another, one academic after another, to warn the Government that we were going to have a shortage of trained manpower in the country. It was done on every occasion, but the Government simply refused to give attention to this matter. Even last year, in 1969, this Government was warned by Mr. Luloffs, the chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee of the Federated Chamber of Industries. He then said, and I quote (translation)—

Then they say they are doing everything possible for industrial expansion in South Africa!

I must say the hon. the Prime Minister at least gave us a reasonable answer when he told us he did not want unemployment among the black people. I think his words were that the black man would still have to come along to the white area for generations to come to help South Africa develop economically. Now the hon. the Minister of Community Development comes along and says that the United Party wants to throw the country open, and that we want free influx control. How can the United Party want free influx control, when it is also our policy to allow the Whites, with their capital and initiative, within the confines of the Native reserves? In that way they will surely immediately have the suction power to give the large number of Bantu there a chance to work in an industry that lies on ‘heir doorstep. Now the hon. gentleman comes along and says that the United Party wants to throw the world open so that the black people can simply stream in. The hon. gentleman ought to know that the United Party has always said that influx control will remain in existence. It will always be applied, because when the local authorities must create certain facilities for the black people, it is absolutely necessary for those people not to be overrun with problems. Where there is an overabundance of black people, and where the people will be needed in our present industrial complexes, they will be allowed to enter our white areas in a controlled way.

However, I can understand the Government’s problem. The Government’s problem is that the people of South Africa are becoming more and more conscious of the fact that their policy in connection with separate development and in connection with their efforts to keep a black man in his own area, has failed hopelessly in the past 22 years. For that reason they now have to come along with the census figures to show that the numbers of black people have increased in their nonwhite areas. However, the fact they would like to suppress is that the Bantu in the white areas increased to eight million in the past ten years. This Government could only prove that its policy has succeeded if, after 10 or 20 years, it could show that there were five, six or seven million Bantu in our white areas instead of eight million. Then the people will believe that their policy is succeeding. While the numbers are increasing, the people of South Africa accept that the black man in our black areas has come to stay, and that economic expansion cannot take place unless those people are there. This will be shown to the people of South Africa again. It beats me to think that the hon. the Minister of Planning could come along with his statement pretending to the people that their policy has succeeded. No, every last person will see through that pretence of the hon. the Minister of Planning.

But, Sir, they have not only failed in respect of the labour question, they have also failed in another respect. They have not only failed in respect of housing and the increasing cost of living; they have also failed in keeping our white people in the rural areas, as they promised 20 years ago. They have not succeeded in giving us a sound agricultural policy in the past 20 years. During this Session it was once more left to the United Party to put forward the problems of the South African farmers. What did we get from the Government? We received only one reply, and the most inefficient of replies at that, i.e. that the Government will assist the South African farmer by means of ad hoc plans and assistance. But there was no message from the Government in respect of long-term planning to ensure a healthy agricultural industry in South Africa for us.

What about the livestock withdrawal scheme?

The hon. gentlemen on that side know that the South African farmer is not only interested in ad hoc assistance. He appreciates it from time to time, when there are droughts or disasters caused by the forces of nature. But what the farmer is striving for is not to be constantly dependent on the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for help every year or few years just to help him keep his head above water. What the South African farmer wants to know is what is going to be done to ensure a sound, economic future for him. That is the South African farmer’s biggest problem. He wants to know what this Government is going to do to take the steps that have already been requested by the South African farmers, inter alia, the creation of an agricultural planning council. A while ago it was proposed in Rhodesia that they should obtain an agricultural development corporation. The South African farmers are asking for an agricultural planning council so that they can put their industry on a sound footing. The farmer of South Africa cannot compete with the present financial institutions that demand tremendously high interest rates. He wants to know from this Government whether they cannot create an agricultural financing division that can incorporate the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank, with all the State help that can thereby be given. It is not only the subsidies or interest rates that are of importance here. If the farmer wants to have a long-term future in South Africa, he must pay ap interest rate that is in accordance with what he can extract from the land.

But there is just one problem that the farmer is up against every day, and which is becoming increasingly worse, i.e. that his spending power is gradually decreasing, as a result of inflation. Higher production costs are all he has in store for him. What is happening? It is not only the ineffective farmer and the small farmer who are falling by the way-side, but we find that even the large farmer and the more efficient farmer are also suffering the same fate. If this Government wants to do something to establish our white population in the rural areas of South Africa once more, it must begin with the most obvious industry, i.e. the agricultural industry. But this Government can also do a great deal by means of smaller industries in the country districts to help to keep our white people there. It is not necessary for me to indicate to hon. members how the rural areas have become depopulated during the past few years, but there I have the supplement to Die Burger of 8th February, 1969. In it we find an article written by Mr. Hannes Malan. There are photographs of the most wonderful hotels that have been built in the past few years, but which are standing absolutely empty in our rural areas to-day. In this article he states (translation)—

Mr. Malan quoted what was said by Mr. Frans Conradie, a Cape M.E.C., i.e. “that everything possible must be done to turn the stream back”. But what does the hon. the Minister of Planning say? When he replied the other day, he asked: “What can we do now to keep our whi'e people in the rural areas?” His own M.E.C. in the Cape says that steps must be taken to turn back this stream that is flowing from the rural areas to the cities. In this respect the Government has completely failed the rural population of South Africa in the recent Session. In this connection we want to make an appeal to the Government. It is not loo late yet. There is still time. Those Ministers of Agriculture must put their heads together. In conjunction with the South African Agricultural Union. Let them then orientate us in respect of how to keep a forward looking rural population in the rural areas, and how to save the South African farmer.

Mr. Speaker, before coming to other matters, I have a duty to fulfil which, on the one hand, is a very pleasant one and, on the other hand, is one which fills one with a measure of sadness. I am here referring specifically to a person who is known to all of us. He is not only a person whom we all know; I think he is pre-eminently a person who knows us better than anyone else does. I am referring to Mr. Herman Rooseboom of this Parliament. He is 71 years old now and he has intimated that he will retire at the end of the present Session. Mr. Rooseboom’s career with Hansard covers a period of 47 years. This is an enormously long period to have been in service here. He assumed duty as a Hansard shorthand writer on 25th January, 1924, at a time when Dutch was still frequently spoken in the South African Parliament. It is interesting to know that this presented no problems to him, as he had had his training in shorthand in the Netherlands. In 1934 Mr. Rooseboom became editor of the Afrikaans section of Hansard. Shortly before the 1939-’45 war he became editor of both the Afrikaans and the English Hansard. He occupied this post of editor-in-chief of Hansard until the end of 1965. Then, as hon. members know, Hansard was taken over by the Department of the House of Assembly. Mr. Rooseboom has since been attached to the Hansard staff of the House of Assembly, where his wide knowledge and experience have been invaluable, both in dealing with the work itself and in training junior members of staff. Mr. Rooseboom has now moved to Oudtshoorn, where he intends to retire. We are grateful that he still enjoys excellent health, and he intends to devote all his energies to his business interests from now on, but he says that he will nevertheless find some time to indulge in his hobbies, namely chess, bridge and bowls. In that regard he will be able to compete with the hon. member for Yeoville. I shall unfortunately be out of the picture.

The Prime Minister should leam to play chess.

I meant as far as the last one is concerned!

Mr. Speaker, to-morrow, God willing, we shall probably come to the end of this Session. In the course of this Session many matters were raised and many discussions were held. There have been matters on which we differed sharply. Fortunately, however, there have also been matters on which we agreed.

One of the matters on which, as I have seen —and I am grateful to say this—all political parties were agreed, was the objection we all felt to the decision of the World Council of Churches. Because I regarded it as my duty to South Africa, I made—as I understood, with the agreement of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—a very strong appeal to individuals and to churches not to adopt an equivocal attitude in this connection. I am glad that some of the churches which have already met in synodal and other assemblies have adopted a clear-cut attitude. I am glad that churches have decided to withhold their contributions from this organization. However, I am sorry too, because I would have liked to have seen churches withdrawing from membership completely, in protest. However, that is their affair. Apart from expressing my regret in this regard, I want to leave it at that.

I am raising this matter again this afternoon because I am aware that certain newspapers and certain church leaders have been doing their best, and will do their best in future, to bring about a confrontation between the Government and a church. I am not seeking a confrontation with any church. I want to repeat what I said during the discussion on my Vote. I have too much respect for my own church as well as for other churches to raise my hand against churches as such. But I want it to be quite clear that while I am not seeking any confrontation with churches as such, I shall not allow myself to be intimidated into not taking action against individual persons if and when it is necessary. I want to make it very clear that persons have come to South Africa in the past, and that persons will again come to South Africa in the future, under the cloak of religion, but with the real object of promoting interests other than those of the Gospel in South Africa. It is indeed a tragedy that in the year 1970 one once again has to complain, like Piet Retief, that South Africa and its people are being accused before the world by persons standing under the cloak of religion. As I have said, I am sorry that member chinches here in South Africa have not withdrawn from membership. Certain church leaders have adopted the attitude, have adopted it in good faith, that they would like to have the opportunity of stating their point of view to the World Counoil of Churches. I do not think that will be of any use, but I want to make it clear here that, irrespective of what has been inferred from what I said earlier on, if there are church leaders who believe that they have a calling in this regard, who believe that they have a case to put, and who believe that they can achieve some good by stating their point of view to the World Council of Churches, I shall not stand in their way. It must be clearly understood, however, that since I have the certainty—it is not just an idea that I have, but a certainty—that the leaders of the World Council of Churches are not primarily interested in spreading the Gospel here, but are primarily interested in bringing about a complete change, even if it be a violent one, in the existing order in South Africa, I therefore want to make this standpoint very clear: They will be unwelcome to come to South Africa, and not only will they be unwelcome—I know it is difficult and I may not always be able to do it in practice— but I will also not allow them to send money to South Africa—in so far as I can prevent it —in order to promote their objects here. Above all, money will not be allowed to be sent out of South Africa. But I am grateful for the reason that I have to believe that there is no church here, not even any of those that are continuing their membership, that will send money outside for this purpose.

Because I have been asked about it, I owe it to this House this afternoon to say why I mentioned the name of Mr. Beyers Naudé when this matter first cropped up. This contact with terrorist leaders is not a situation which has developed now; this moral support which the World Council of Churches is giving to them is not something which arose yesterday or the day before. In addition to what I know, I have been informed—interestingly enough, by an English-speaking churchman—that when Dr. Blake came to South Africa he was aware of the fact that this decision to give moral support to the terrorists in this way had already been taken. He conferred with his brothers in Christ here and preached from pulpits here. But except to one certain clergymen—so I am informed—he did not say a single word to other Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking clergymen about the fact that this decision had been taken. As I have said, I owe it to this House to say Why I mentioned, the name of Mr. Beyers Naudé. On 28th/29th October, 1969. Mr Beyers Naudé, with the members of the World Council of Churches, among others Dr. Visser ’t Hoof and also Dr. Vercueil, who were here in South Africa, met for the purpose of holding discussions. In those discussions consideration was given to the way in which they could act against South Africa. These are people who say that they stand in the name of the Gospel. One of the things they discussed there, was that they should exert influence—

This is what they occupied themselves with. They also occupied themselves with how to get South Africa ousted further from the world of sport; they occupied themselves with how to make matters difficult for Portugal; they decided what influence they should exert upon ambassadors and others to bring pressure to bear on South Africa. I shall read from the minutes which were kept, by Alan R. Booth, one of the members—

Do you see, Sir, how far it goes back? It goes against the grain that a member of one’s own people—I am not putting it more strongly than that at the moment, because I said that he owes South Africa an explanation—was present at this discussion, as recorded here by Booth.

Sir, than there is the case of Mercer and of Chamberlain in Stellenbosch. Certain newspapers have levelled the accusation at me that, when I quoted from Mercer’s pamphlet, I did not … Let me first say that, as far as Chamberlain is concerned, I never mentioned his name in this connection. His case falls in a completely different category. But I have ascertained the facts and I fully agree that his time in South Africa is up, just like Mercer’s.

I just want to say the following for the sake of the record, and I am sorry that I again have to bore hon. members with it, but I am doing this because the allegation has been made against me that this was not what Mercer said, but that in fact he was merely stimulating people into thinking. Not even Eve would have put up such a fig-leaf! Sir, I previously read the following to you—

And then he quotes—

Here the quotation ends. This is supposed to be what he put forward to stimulate people into thinking. In the process he states his case against South Africa in a very subtle way and, in addition, slanders us in passing. Continuing, however, he is no longer dealing with quotations, but is stating his own point of view—

And then the Archbishop of Cape Town has to say to me that I misread and misunderstood it and should reconsider my standpoint! But it goes further. He not only says: “If the motive was indeed something like this, then we cannot quarrel with it”, but goes on to say—

This is no longer an opinion; it is his standpoint. And then the Archbishop of Cape Town comes along and publicly accuses me of having misread it and of not understanding it! And then he continues—

Then I am asked to use my influence in order to keep in South Africa such a man, who, is a foreigner, abuses the hospitality of South Africa in such a way.

Before the hon. the Prime Minister goes on to deal with something else, I wonder whether if may not be in the interests of South Africa that he should say something more about the case of Chamberlain.

As far as the case of Chamberlain is concerned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that it is customary, not only in South Africa, but also in all countries of the world, if you do not want to allow a foreigner to stay in your country any longer, not to give any reasons for that. America does it; England does it; France, Germany and South Africa all do it. But I shall tell the hon. member this. I personally acquainted myself with the reasons which motivated my colleague the hon. the Minister of the Interior to take action against him. I want to say to hon. members of this House that if I had been Minister of the Interior, I would have adopted precisely the same attitude as my colleague did. I think my colleague acted correctly and properly and I believe that South Africa, and Stellenbosch in particular, are much better off without Chamberlain than with him.

But while we are on that point, I do just want to mention an interesting thing. The Council of Churches and their apologists in South Africa so lightly reject any suggestion that communism has infiltrated among these people. In the most recent defence put forward by the Council of Churches, which they officially sent to the churches of South Africa as their defence, they of course deny that they have any communist infiltration or that they have any inclination towards promoting communism. But this same Council of Churches, which reprimanded President Kennedy when he wanted to take action against communist Cuba, but which have never lifted a finger to reprimand any communist country for what it has done, nevertheless find it necessary to say the following in this official document of theirs—

Please note, not in South Africa—

This is the view of the World Council of Churches in regard to the growth of Communism in Europe. One need hardly say anything more about that.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of this debate the hon. member for Durban (North) made an attack for the third time; this time, however, it was not made on me, for very good reasons. Previously the hon. member had in fact done so. The hon. member for Durban (North) made another attack on the hon. the Minister of Mines, and did so because of an incident which took place between the hon. the Minister and a certain Marendaz 11 years ago and from which a dispute arose as to whether the Minister (Dr. De Wet) had been a director of a certain company or not. There is nothing else of importance about this incident, neither as far as the company is concerned nor as far as Dr. De Wet is concerned, but the member for Durban (North) has now again made use here of this eleven-year old incident, which he wanted to use against me under my Vote earlier on in order to cast suspicion on me as Minister of Justice at the time and now as Prime Minister. The hon. member knows that I pointed out to him that his attack largely consisted of half-truths and untruths in respect of myself in this connection. In this debate I am now as innocent as a lamb; now he has no fault to find with me. It is wonderful what lessons one sometimes learns.

He said you were mis-informed.

I am not referring to that now; I shall come to that. I am saying that the hon. member supported his previous attacks on me with half-truths and untruths. Now he again comes along with this dispute, a dispute which has not become known only recently, but which became known seven years ago. It was in the Sunday Times as far back as seven years ago, after the case in Vereeniging. The hon. member is aware of that. With that dispute which has been known for seven years and which is 11 years old, the hon. member now comes along in order to do this ugly thing in this House. The hon. member used the pretext that new evidence had come to light. A new letter has come to light, one of which I too was not aware. That is all that has come to Light, but the substance of this letter is exactly the same as that of the other letter of 12th February, in that it is a confirmation by Dr. De Wet that he was resigning as a director of that company.

What about the letter of a year later?

In the letter of a year later he was still helpful to that person, because he fell in that area.

He was in a mess.

It was a mess from which he had to extricate himself.

Yes. That is why he dissociated himself. Can the hon. member for Yeoville, who now knows all about this matter, tell me why a man would resign from a board of directors five months after he had become a member of it? Why would he dissociate himself from it if it were not to get out of a mess?

He did not dissociate himself; he merely began to act unofficially.

This is a new story again. If the hon. member prefers to come and tell this new story, he may do so. I want to place on record, in view of what has been said here, that we are here dealing with a Minister who came to Parliament in 1953 and who represented South Africa in Britain for three years with great distinction and free of any blame or blemish. He is a man who. furthermore, has served in the Cabinet for four years in such a manner that I have received no complaint from any hon. member on the other side in regard to the way in which he has managed his portfolio. In this connection I want to ask hon. members opposite, and my hon. friend the member for Yeoville is going to speak after me …

I hope there will be time.

You will have the time. The hon. member must answer a question for me on behalf of the Opposition. Surely the Opposition had a Parliamentary remedy in this matter, since they have used the hon. member for Durban (North) as an instrument for attacking the character of the Minister. If the Opposition in this Parliament is of the opinion that a man is unfit to manage and to hold his portfolio, the customary way to show this to the world is to move that the salary of the Minister concerned be withdrawn. This is our Parliamentary way of doing this. They have been lodging complaints against this hon. Minister with me all session. They say that he is so unsuited, because he is dishonourable, that I should throw him out at once. However, his portfolio came before this House, and no motion was moved by that side. They did not even level any reproach at the hon. the Minister. Let us ask ourselves this, and the reply to this question is one which not only the hon. members opposite must give to themselves, but which the members on my side of the House must also give: Did the hon. the Minister act falsely? I am using this ugly word deliberately. Was he being false when he said that he had not been a member of that board of directors? The Minister was quite prepared to have it tested in court. That is why an objection was lodged on his behalf and that case was to have come before the court. But what happened then? When the case had to be placed on the roll and had to be heard, it was Marendaz who took the initiative, as I proved conclusively to hon. members, in settling the matter. Then he did not want to go to court, but wanted to settle the matter. A deed of settlement was then drawn up, as the hon. member for Durban (North) will know. I think it was dated 2nd February, if I remember correctly. Was that the date of that letter from Marendaz’s attorney?

I cannot remember.

The hon. member will know that the deed of settlement came from Marendaz’s attorney with a covering letter.

That is customary.

I know it is customary, but I just want the admission from the hon. member that the letter came from Marendaz himself.

But he got damages.

Yes, but the settlement was initiated by him.

But who paid?

The settlement came from him and the deed of settlement from his attorney.

How much did he pay?

If the hon. member for Yeoville would just listen, he would find out that I am not dealing with the payment now, but with the deed of settlement. The following appears in the deed of settlement: “Plaintiff …”, i.e. Marendaz, and it comes from him and not from Dr. De Wet, “undertakes forthwith to withdraw his action against both defendants. The plaintiff formally withdraws the averments made against both defendants and/or their agents or servants in the particulars of plaintiff’s claim.” The dispute is now whether Dr. De Wet was being false when he said that he was not a director or whether Marendaz was right.

Those are always the terms of a settlement.

Yes, but the hon. member has not yet heard what I want to say now. After all, he is not an oracle like the hon. member for Hillbrow, who knows in advance what is going to happen. But what more do we find in this settlement? I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the following: “In particular plaintiff retracts his allegations that the law was set in motion against plaintiff maliciously or falsely.” Marendaz himself says here that he withdraws any allegation there may be that either Dr. De Wet or the Department acted falsely against him.

You always find that in a settlement.

You may always find that in a settlement, but this settlement was sent under a covering letter from their attorneys. Surely, if words have any meaning, it was not necessary to have used these words? Why then were they inserted? For Marendaz and his attorneys. Please note that the settlement, which is in the possession of the hon. member for Durban (North) as well, was not signed by Marendaz’s advocates and attorneys, but by Marendaz himself. This makes the matter all the more remarkable. Nobody asked for this and his attorneys did not sign it, but Marendaz himself did. He admits that no false or malevolent act whatsoever was committed against him. The hon. member for Durban (North), however, knows better. He knows better than the advocates and the attorneys who dealt with the matter all along. He also knows better than all those who have studied the merits of the case. He knows better than Marendaz himself and then makes allegations in this House. I can only say to the hon. member for Durban (North) that he has not risen in my estimation for having done this thing. He is an hon. member of ability and with possibilities. In the discussion on my Vote I devoted a great deal of time to arguing the merits of this case. I have now conclusively discussed the so-called new facts which have now been put forward by hon. members on the opposite side. I say, Sir, that on that basis and with those facts in mind hon. members see their way clear to levelling accusations of this kind.

In passing I just want to put right one matter which I mentioned in the course of that debate, because it may possibly be misunderstood. That is the reference to the Ramzam Company (Pty.) Ltd., and to what Dr. De Wet’s reaction was, as well as his reaction when he was subsequently approached in regard to the company Marendaz Diesels (Pty.) Ltd. At that time I disposed of the matter briefly by saying that his reaction had been the same. It was the same in every respect, hut he was not asked the question—I have verified this—whether he knew the company Marendaz Diesels (Pty.) Ltd., nor did he react to that in any way. I am just putting this right, because I am responsible for it.

You were in collusion with him.

Order! Who said that?

I did, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw it immediately.

I withdraw, Sir.

Sir, I shall not react to that hon. member. It is quite beneath me.

I just want to put right one other matter here too, because it has received publicity. I have here an affidavit from a certain Daniel Johannes Joubert Fourie, who is a senior clerk in the Companies Registry Office. According to this affidavit Dr. De Wet is listed as being a director of Bamzam (Pty) Ltd., a company with which he never had anything to do. It is pointed out that he was listed as a director of that company from 15th September, 1959, to 2nd November, 1960. This was in spite of the letter of 12th February, 1960. Hon. members can now further decide this matter for themselves.

Sir, ‘I have dealt with the World Council of Churches.

Have you finished with Marendaz now?

I have finished with that. If the hon. member has any question to ask me, he may do so now.

I asked so many questions, but I have received no replies.

That is typical of the reaction of hon. members opposite. Apart from what I said previously, I have dealt with the matter in the light of the new attack made by the hon. member. If the hon. member wants the assurance from me, I want to say to him very clearly that I regard Dr. De Wet as an able Minister, just as the Opposition does. I regard him as an honourable man. Let there be no doubt whatsoever about that. He was caught by a person of Marendaz’s type. I am sorry about that. He and his family have suffered as a result of that. But what I regret profoundly is that a person of the calibre of the hon. member for Durban (North) allowed himself to be used as an instrument by such a scoundrel for making such an attack in this House.

We now come to what was raised in the debate. I come, in the first instance, to the hon. member for Transkei. For the umpteenth time the hon. member used the United Party’s scare-story which they spread in every election. They go from platform to platform and ask, “Where are the boundaries of the black areas in South Africa?” For the umpteenth time, but for the sake of the record, I want to state it here once again. There is not a single person who does not know where those boundaries are at the present moment. Surely anybody who wants to ascertain where they are can do so.

At the present moment.

Yes, at the present moment. Do you agree with that?

For how long?

First just tell me. Does the hon. member agree that this is so for the present?

At the present moment, yes, of course.

Now we have at least got that far. For the present we now know where the boundaries are. To-day the boundaries are no longer the same as they were ten years ago. Nor are they the same as they were 20 years ago.

That is what we say. …

I shall tell the hon. member why this is so. He should not try to give out that nobody knows where the boundaries are. What are the facts? In 1936 this Parliament went out of its way to lay down by means of legislation exactly what was white land and what was black land in South Africa. The architects of that were Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Smuts. I have here the Act and the Schedule thereto. We have no argument in that regard. If they had left the matter at tnat, the final boundaries would have been demarcated. Whether those boundaries were good or bad, would not have mattered. The hon. member knows, however, that they did not leave the matter at that. They went further than that. In section 10 of Act No. 18 of 1936 they stated that in addition to the land which was black land at that date, the white people had to give 7¼ million morgen of their land to the black people.

We all know that.

Very well, until such time as those million morgen have been granted, there can be no finality as far as the boundaries are concerned. That goes without saying.

They did not suggest that there should be separate states.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of boundaries. Let us for the moment forget about those areas becoming independent. We are now speaking of the boundaries between the white area and the black area. Until such time as those million morgen have been purchased, there can be no question of saying exactly where the boundaries are going to be for all eternity, because other land will still have to be added.

Under our policy it does not matter where.

I do not care what your policy is. If you know what your policy is, you will amaze me, because in that case you will be the only one who knows your policy. I am now concerned with the factual situation of the boundaries. While we are on that point, I want to say that we are being reproached with not spending enough money for this purpose. Do hon. members realize how much money has to be spent in order to carry out the promise given by the white man to the black man in 1936? To date it has cost R81 million in round figures to give effect to that 1936 resolution of this Parliament, It is interesting to note that 5.4 million morgen of the 7¼ million morgen have been acquired to date. In other words, in terms of the promise made by the white man in 1936, a considerable number of morgen still has to be purchased. This Government will honour that promise that was given, no matter how suspect it is made by the Opposition, because it concerns the promise of the white man to the black man and it is the honour of this Parliament that is at stake. That land still has to be purchased. Surely it goes without saying that until such time as that land has been added, there can be no finality with regard to the borders. In 1936, and to-day to a lesser extent, there were black spots and white spots which ought not to have existed, as hon. members know. The Act makes provision fox the exchange of white and black spots. That process has not yet been completed. My colleague is expediting it. I want to ask the Opposition whether they will give their support to expediting the process even more.

What will then become of the black area at Rosslyn?

It will remain there.

Surely one will not have consolidation in that case.

Consolidation cannot be absolute. Therefore it is not an absolute condition either. Surely the hon. member for Yeoville knows that there are many states which do not have consolidated land. The land of Pakistan does not form an unbroken entity, nor does that of Portugal, not does that of the United States and nor does that of Mauritius. I can mention many other states to the hon. member. Whether this land consists of one, three or ten pieces does not alter the principle of the matter at all, i.e. that there are countries whose land does not form a consolidated whole. It is, however, our aim to have the largest possible measure of consolidation. The process of exchange and consolidation will continue. It is not in the interests of anyone to have too many pieces of fragmented land in the form of white islands here and black islands there. It is the policy, just as it was the policy of the United Party under Gen. Hertzog, to bring about that consolidation. What that side of this House is going to do in this regard, I do not know. Since the hon. member now admits that we know exactly where the borders are to-day, and since he knows what the facts are with regard to the additions, I want to ask him what one actually achieves by making propaganda of this matter?

I now come to something with which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition charged me. For many years I have been listening with a great deal of interest to the various people quoted by the hon. member in his attacks on us in this House. They are professor this and doctor that. My friend will forgive me if I tell him that I would appreciate it very highly if he said something original himself in this regard one day. However, this is his way of debating. He quotes this doctor and that professor. Let me now put a question to the Leader of the Opposition in all seriousness: Is there one of the doctors or professors who supports the United Party’s policy?

The very reason why I quote them is to prove how wrong you are.

Do you mean they are United Party supporters?

No.

But that is what I want to know.

I mean that they are your supporters but they do not agree with you.

If the position is as the hon. the Leader wants to suggest, i.e. that they condemn our policy, surely they cannot be my supporters, as you have said.

It does not follow.

But they are my supporters and I am very grateful that they are. But they do not support the hon. member. They do not support his policy and his ideology either.

That has nothing to do with the matter.

Of course it has everything to do with the matter. But I shall put a further question to the hon. the Leader. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacks our education policy. It is interesting to me to put this question to him. The hon. member for Yeoville can reply to it. What educationist in South Africa supports the education policy of the U.P. when the U.P. is talking politics in this House? I know of no single recognized educationist anywhere who supports the United Party’s policy. The hon. member has a lot of time to ponder on that now and to reply later.

I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. On several occasions he said and in this debate he spelt it out … I notice the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is asking the hon. member for Yeoville something. Will the hon. member please give it to him?

Thank you very much.

The hon. member has said that a few times now and has again repeated it in this debate. I want to quote to him from his Hansard in respect of section 77, which he says he is going to repeal. He said—

Now I want to issue a friendly and sporting challenge to the hon. member. After all, he says that he is no longer an alternative Government for the distant future, but that he is prepared to take over now. Section 77 is on the Statute Book and is there for everyone to read. My challenge to the hon. member now is to publish before the provincial election his formula for the “greater protection” which he will offer to the white worker.

I have stated that here repeatedly, and you will still hear it many times.

I do not want any circumlocution; I want the hon. member’s formula as it would appear in the legislation which the hon. member would introduce if he were to come into power. Then at least we shall have something in common to argue about. But to use mere words now, to say that they will offer better protection to the white worker, surely means nothing. My friend the hon. member for Yeoville will agree with me as far as this is concerned.

Section 77 is mere words too. Only 2 per cent of the workers are affected by it. It therefore actually means nothing.

Now section 77 means nothing to that hon. member, but when they attack us on the labour problem, they say it is the result of section 77—work reservation. And now, when the hon. member wants to make politics out of it, he says it means nothing because it affects only 2 per cent of the workers. Surely he cannot have his cake and eat it too—either it means something or it means nothing. All of us want to give to the white worker the best which can possibly be given in South Africa. If this provision of mine then means nothing, if it is not worth the paper on which it is written, let the hon. member publish his formula so that the workers can take note of it. The hon. member has never come forward with a concept of what his formula would look like if they should come into power. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, why is he afraid to take up a standpoint? There is, for example, the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, which I have already raised in this House. I am referring to the loading and deloading of constituencies, a matter which the hon. member has raised on more than one occasion. Finally I have now got the Leader of the Opposition so far as to react to it. But what has his reaction been? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout openly expounds his point of view in this connection. Over against that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes here and says that he has taken note of the interesting idea of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and that it will receive attention in due course and that when the time arrives a Select Committee will have to decide about it. But this is not what I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

And what about the Minister of Information, who speaks of a separate Coloured state?

But I took up a clear standpoint in regard to that; I said that it was not practical politics. I am not afraid to take up a standpoint. If my colleague here says that this is a matter which he wants to think about, then I can say that, as far as I am concerned, it is not practical politics. Therefore I am taking up a standpoint.

I have also taken up a standpoint.

No, you have not. I do not just want you to say that it was an interesting suggestion by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; you must say whether you agree with it or not.

With what?

With the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

What was the suggestion?

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me what the suggestion was! The suggestion was that the loading and deloading of rural constituencies should be done away with …

You are making a mistake.

That it is wrong. May I now in all modesty ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Are you in favour of the retention of the system of loading and deloading as it applies at present? You need only reply “yes” or “no”.

I think the matter should be investigated. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition charged me with other things as well. He accused my Government, inter alia, that—

Sir, the various revenue votes have all been discussed here. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes here, at the end of the debate on the Appropriation Bill, and accuses me of employing too many of the country’s people. Of course, I have not attended all the discussions, but I have no knowledge of any accusation levelled by the opposite side against a Minister to the effect that he has too many people in his service and that he should get rid of them. Over against that, I know of reproaches levelled at Agricultural Technical Services, at Justice, at the Railways and others, that they have too few people.

There has been too much unnecessary legislation; this requires labour.

Very well. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would very much like to get into power, not so? And I do not take it amiss of him either. If the hon. member for Pinelands now speaks on behalf of the United Party and says that there is too much legislation, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition surely knows what the procedure is. Here he has the finest propaganda before an election, i.e. to come here and propose that the following laws should be summarily repealed because they are not necessary for the administration of South Africa. After all, parliamentary procedure makes provision for the discussion of such a motion. In this connection I want to make another sporting offer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

We have often attacked that legislation.

If the hon. member for Pinelands is right, I am quite prepared to compromise my Chief Whip in that he will, in consultation with the Chief Whip on the other side, create an opportunity for them next session to place such a motion on the Order Paper and to debate it here. What more does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled a further reproach at me. He said it was a fault of the Government that it “interferes too much” with the life of the man in the street, but he gave no example whatsoever of this. He simply made a general statement, and it sounds very fine to say this on a political platform. But it is without any substance. In fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not even try to substantiate it with examples. But the most important thing to me as a practical person is the following: The Leader of the Opposition blatantly made the statement: “The Government is spending too large a proportion of the country’s money.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that this was the case. Well, this White Book, the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, mentions every cent which the Government is going to spend in this financial year. It contains details of the millions and millions which we are going to spend. But I know of no single amount which has been attacked by the Opposition as being an amount which should not be spent. You must remember, Sir, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition came along here at the end of the Session and made this his main accusation—that we are spending too much money. If there is any substance in this, surely it is the easiest thing in the world for him to have his experts, if he has any, get up here and tell the Government with reference to this White Book not to spend this or that amount.

How stupid can you be!

Now that hon. member asks, “How stupid can you be?” Surely one cannot just make the general statement that millions are being spent and that the Government is spending too much money, without making a single attempt to furnish any proof of where the money is being spent wrongly.

I have already told you. [Interjections.]

I know that makes two of us, but at least I am not so stupid, to use the word of the hon. member for Zululand, as to tell the Leader of the Opposition he is spending too much money and then not to tell him in respect of which matters he is spending too much money.

But let us go further. I asked the hon. the Leader of the the Opposition in very great earnest in respect of his black representation, on what grounds does he justify giving the black people eight representatives in this House, and they are Whites, and the Indians two representatives, and they are Whites? I asked him the direct question whether he refused them Black or Indian representation because they were Black or Indian. I asked him whether he refused it because they were irresponsible. I asked him whether he refused it because they were not sufficiently developed. I asked him whether he refused it because he was engaged in a softening-up process. What was the reply of the hon. Leader of the Opposition? Sir, it is one of the most amazing replies which I have ever heard from a political leader in South Africa, and I refer to the English Hansard, column 4269 of 16th September, and it was not a reply which the hon. member gave off the cuff; it was a well-considered reply. If I remember correctly, I asked him the questions on the previous day and he replied on the following day, and you know the hon. the Leader of the Opposition keeps to his text when speaking in this House. He had it in writing in front of him when he gave me the answer, and this is what he said—

… I believe that the prejudice against the Bantu in this House is such that Whites will be able to do a better job for them than they can do for themselves, especially as there will be statutory standing committees under our policy for liaison with the various communal councils.

In other words, I pertinently put the question to him whether they could not sit here because they were black, or because they were irresponsible, or because they were not sufficiently educated or sufficiently qualified or sufficiently developed. The hon. the Leader advanced as a reason that there was too much prejudice in this House and therefore they had to be Whites. Can one imagine that a responsible political leader can found his whole political policy—because this is the crucial question in South African politics— and his motivation and philosophy on the basis that there is too much prejudice in this House?

Do you not believe it?

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really mean it?

Of course I mean it.

Is that the only reason why they must be White?

You asked me what the reason was, and I gave the reason.

I mentioned four possible reasons. In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concedes that the fact that the Bantu are black does not matter.

I concede nothing.

Must I then conclude that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that they are responsible enough?

Why do you say they should not be represented here?

I shall tell the hon. member. But since the hon. member is kind enough to ask me questions, I want to ask him if he thinks they are responsible enough to sit here.

That has nothing to do with the matter.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me questions, and I answer the questions, but he is like a tough cow that I have to milk; I am getting nothing out of him. I am putting these questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and he owes us the answers. The hon. member for Yeoville is a fearless man. He will tell me whether the United Party objects to a black man representing the black people here.

You received the reply.

I am now putting the question to the hon. member for Yeoville.

You are just playing politics.

Sir, I am a politician; I am not ashamed of that, and there is a provincial election ahead of me. These are political problems to which replies must be given. Sir, one of the members on that side presumed to say that he was speaking on behalf of the youth. Can one go to the youth of South Africa and say: “I, who am the leader of a political party, base my political views on prejudice that exists?”

Your entire policy is based on prejudice.

No, my policy is not based on prejudice.

Of course it is.

What about the Coloured representatives?

That is not a question of prejudice. I had the courage of my convictions to say that it was wrong in principle that Coloured people were represented in this Parliament.

Why?

Are they unqualified?

That has nothing to do with it. I say the Coloureds are qualified. Hon. members may laugh about that if they wish. But I say that they will not be represented in this House.

Why not?

Because I adopt the attitude that this Parliament is for the Whites. As far as the Bantu are concerned, I do not hide behind saying that there is prejudice against them.

Your entire policy is based on that.

Sir, I come back to the hon. member for Transkei again, and with this I want to conclude. My standpoint is that if the Bantu want political rights they can have political rights, but that they can obtain them only in their own area and can exercise them only over their own people.

What about the self-determination?

Sir, the self-determination lies in the fact that it is for the Bantu to decide whether they want to go their own way or not; what form of government they want to adopt for themselves, the form of government which they now have here and which they can get up to the Transkei, or a form of government which makes them independent in every respect; therein lies their self-determination.

You give them a choice between two alternatives.

It is for them to decide whether they want independence or not.

And if they say “no”?

If they say “no”, then they do not become independent. But then I am not the one who is keeping them in a position of subservience. Then it is in terms of their own decision that they want to remain in that position. If hon. members cannot understand that, they will most definitely not be able to understand anything else in this connection.

I want to make the accusation against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this reply he gave me, i.e. that his policy is only based on the prejudice existing here, indicates that he and his people are just bent on softening up enough people to bring the black man into this Parliament. I accuse him of just wanting to create the climate that will make it possible for him to do what he said as long ago as 1964 was inevitable, whether we liked it or not. The hon. the Leader of the Oppositions standpoint in 1964 was that it would have to come eventually. He said that at Heilbron. The hon. member for Yeoville adopted the same standpoint. I can very well understand that there are members opposite who do not like that. I can very well imagine that there are members opposite who fear that day. It is typical of that side of the House, when one is discussing the Bantu, to say that one must speak about the Coloureds, and when one is speaking about the Coloureds, they say one must speak about the Bantu. That is how it is. [Interjections.] I have stated my point of view in respect of the Bantu very clearly at all times. It has been stated here over the years. But I want to tell hon. members opposite that they are playing with fire. If they say in all seriousness that they do not want the black man here, why make it possible in principle for him to come here? Why create the circumstances and tell him that he is to come to this Parliament, admittedly in the form of white representation, but that that is simply because there is prejudice against him as a black person? Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is just as concerned about race relations in South Africa as I am, imagine how much harm it would do …

Much less harm than you are doing.

… to race relations in South Africa if the black man were to be told: “Look, there is nothing preventing your presence in the Parliament of South Africa except the prejudice existing against you.” This would surely harm race relations in South Africa tremendously. It is surely much better to tell him: “Look, you are different to what I am; I have my land and you have yours, and you will exercise your political rights on your land and be the master there.”

Is it not better to tell him the truth?

No, if one were to tell him what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says, he would, in the first place, ask one what kind of a leader one was in saying that he could be here, in conceding that it would be a good thing if he were here, but adding: “I regret that I cannot allow you to be here, because there is prejudice against you.”

“And the Whites will do better work for you.”

Do you think that when you have said that he would clap his hands about it?

I want to conclude by appealing to everyone that, whatever we do in the future, we should not unnecessarily disturb race relations, because in a country like South Africa it … [Interjections.] It is not necessary for me to say this to hon. members on my side of the House. Hon. members must not tempt me, at this stage of the debate, to elaborate on who gave offence to whom. Hon. members opposite know this very well.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has very great hopes and expectations for the future. I want to make it very clear to him that I listened to the criticism that came from him and from his party. I listened to it attentively, as is proper, but I see no alternative in it to the policy and the standpoint of the National Party. In fact, there was no attempt on the other side in the last election, neither was there one during this Session, nor will there be one in this election, just as there was no attempt in Klip River either, to state the United Party’s policy, but other considerations will be given pride of place.

Gerdener himself said it was a clean fight.

The hon. member now compels me to say what kind of a fight it was. Hon. members will recall that wnen I made the announcement in this House that we would fight terrorists into the countries from which they come and that we would chase them, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition immediately agreed with me and said that they had been waiting for it for a long time. I was glad of that, but what happened subsequently in Klip River? In Klip River, at a meeting at which the hon. member for Hillbrow was present, Capt. Henderson, their candidate, attacked me on these very words that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had acclaimed in Parliament, according to the Argus of 22nd September of this year. The hon. member for Hillbrow was present at that meeting, according to the Argus’s report. If the hon. member has any complaints about that, he must take the matter up with the Argus. I quote from the Argus—

That is what they said with reference to that matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition acclaimed, and that while the hon. member for Hillbrow was present at the meeting. As far as I am concerned, I have full confidence, not only in the people representing the National Party, but also in the standpoint and policy of the party, and with that confidence. I am going forward to meet the provincial election.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of his speech the hon. the Prime Minister asked a very large number of questions and seemed to indicate that he expected me to answer them all. I should very much like to do just that, but I was given to understand that I would have a half an hour to do it in, and since I have been denied that, I can only answer some of the questions.

At the very outset I want to say that I and all the members on this side of the House associate ourselves with what the Prime Minister has said in regard to Mr. Rooseboom of Hansard. I had the privilege of having known Mr. Rooseboom well since 1938, when I was a member of the Press Gallery. From a personal knowledge I can pay a tribute to his efficiency and his kindness towards young people, whom he was always willing to help in every respect. Therefore, noting the remarkable service he has rendered to the institution of Parliament, I also want to say that we bid him farewell and wish him well, not only as an efficient servant, but as a friend and a generous personality.

Very seldom I can congratulate the Prime Minister, but to-day I want to do it. To-day he made a speech which was a political speech —he said so himself—that was largely superficial, because very often political arguments tend to be superficial.

You are never.

No, of course not. I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister shows such insight. But I have to congratulate him that he did not sink, although he was superficial, into the deep mud of some of the speeches we have heard during this debate. We thought, especially since we became a Republic and because we had assurances from the other side, that our politics would be conducted on a higher level and that, above all, attempts to exacerbate the race feelings amongst the Whites would end. I can truthfully say that there was no evidence of that during the course of this debate, judged by some of the speeches that came from the opposite side. I think we should deplore them. It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not take this opportunity to deplore them too. But I think the difficulty is that in this debate there was an invisible participant. There was a dominating spirit floating over the benches of the members opposite—the spirit of Dr. Albert Hertzog. It is clear that, in spite of his expulsion, the verkrampte point of view is powerful in that party and is likely to gain the ascendancy. I shall not be surprised if in the next year or two the Nationalist Party caucus recalls Albert Hertzog to become the leader of the Nationalist Party. The signs are there, unmistakably.

My very good friend the hon. Minister of Community Development became very excited this afternoon as a result of my Leader speaking about the mobility of labour. He saw the disappearance of influx control and he saw mobility, geographically speaking, becoming unconditional for Bantu labour in South Africa.

Of course.

My Leader showed me what he said. He did not speak of the mobility of labour in the geographic sense at all. He spoke of it in an occupational sense. He said that what must happen, is that labour must become mobile in moving from less productive to more productive jobs. He quoted the example of Sweden and referred to the famous book by P. F. Druker called “The Age of Discontinuity”, one of the most outstanding books on labour relations that have been written in recent times. My Leader pointed out that in Sweden—he commended it to the Government—there is a body representative of the State, Labour and Industry, which considers how jobs have to be adapted to changing circumstances to make the labour force mobile in industry, not geographically. And yet my hon. friend the Minister of Community Development came near to apoplexy. I do not want that to happen. So I suggest that he becomes calm and reasoned and studies his brief before he speaks in Parliament. He is a remarkably eloquent man, but he must never let his eloquence be based upon fiction, because he and I know of the dangers that arise when one indulges in fiction.

I would also like to say just a word or two on this question of national unity, because yesterday my hon. friend the member for King William’s Town was roundly attacked for Certain sentiments that he expressed on national unity. He said—I have his Hansard here—that his father had taught him that if you want national unity, you must be prepared to give up “jou Afrikanernasieskap”. I think, quite frankly, that he used the wrong word. But fortunately we have a very friendly Minister of Defence. For once he and I thought the same thing, but he was quicker on the draw. He stood up and asked the question that I wanted to ask. He brought clarity. He gave the hon. member for King William’s Town the opportunity, which I am glad he got, of specifically stating what he meant when he spoke. What he meant, was the following, and I quote—

I think we are unanimous on this point, Sir—

[Interjections.]

*I mentioned that. I just want to say that we are all agreed on that point.

On a point of order, Sir …

Order! What is the point of order?

Is the hon. member allowed to start his speech in English and to finish it in Afrikaans?

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member. I want to go further in my support of the hon. member for King William’s Town. Unless we in South Africa appreciate that there is something more important in South Africa than being Afrikaans speaking or being English speaking, and that that is being South African, we shall never have a united nation in South Africa. It is important to us if we are Afrikaans speaking, and it is important to our friends if they are English speaking. It should be important, because you cannot be a good South African if you are a bad Afrikaner or if you are a bad Englishman.

Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time, and I want to say in advance that I am not prepared to answer any questions. I want to put this to the Nationalist Party: The hon. member for Stilfontein was applauded yesterday when he spoke about the Second World War. He said that the Afrikaner had nothing to do with that war and that he had no interest in that war. He insinuated that English-speaking people were being un-South African because they took part in that war. I do not agree with him. But is the suggestion not that there may be circumstances where the English-speaking people will have to be South Africans first and English speaking second? Let me put it this way: If there is a conflict for the English-speaking people between being English speaking and being South African, how must they resolve that conflict? If there is a conflict in my heart between being Afrikaans speaking and being a true South African, how should I resolve that conflict? I say that the interest of South Africa and the South African nation is bigger than the interest of any section. That is the attitude of the United Party. I am not ashamed of that attitude. I am proud of it. Until hon. members opposite can see themselves also as South Africans, all their talk of national unity is so much blah, and it means nothing. Let us get that clear once and for all.

The hon. the Prime Minister asked us to deal with other questions. He asked me why the hon. the Minister of Mines resigned his directorship after five months. I do not know, Sir, but I know what reason he gave. He wrote a letter to Capt. Marendaz, which was quoted in this House. I shall not do so again. He said that certain political developments in his private life, which he was not at liberty to disclose, had required him to resign from all directorships. Yet he was only director of one company. That was the reason he gave. I assume that was true. Why did the Prime Minister ask me, when he had this reason straight from the horse’s mouth? Here he has the reason from the only man who knows what motives persuaded him. That is the sort of superficiality we had from the Prime Minister. It seemed impressive when he could chortle out these questions which seemed so important but which were in fact meaningless.

Sir, he even wanted us to explain how a letter of settlement originated from Capt. Marendaz, in which Capt Marendaz withdrew certain charges. This, he suggested, showed that Capt. Marendaz was in the wrong and that the Minister of Mines was in the right. Sir, what did that letter cost the taxpayer of South Africa? It cost the taxpayer R3,750. Did that originate from Capt Marendaz? Did he offer to pay the State R3,750, or did the State offer to pay him R3,750 provided that he would withdraw his charges? That is all he wanted. He wanted his honour re-established; he wanted retribution for an injustice done to him. Sir, it was done 3,750 times. What more could he want? How can the hon. the Prime Minister debate at that level and ask us to take it seriously?

You are playing politics.

The Prime Minister was playing politics with the hon. member for Transkei about the consolidation of the boundaries of the reserves. He made great play of the fact that we know the boundaries. We knew them 10 years ago and we know them to-day. He did not, however, touch on the crucial factor which we are talking about, namely: What will the boundaries be after South Africa has been called upon to give away millions upon millions of morgen of South African territories to new independent states on our borders?

That is the question. When we spoke in 1936 and decided quite rightly to buy seven million morgen more land for the black people of South Africa, there was no thought of independent Bantustans. That is a subsequent development of Nationalist Party policy which makes the future boundaries of these areas important to every South African. According to a former Minister of Bantu Administration, Mr. de Wet Nel. there were more than 200 isolated little areas of Bantu reserves in South Africa. I am told by my friend who represents Zululand that in Zululand there are 100 isolated spots. They have to be consolidated to a large extent. That is the recorded Nationalist Party policy.

Yes.

Yes. But then surely we are entitled to know what you are going to give away of South Africa. It is not a question of where the boundary was ten years ago; we want to know what you are going to give away of South Africa to-morrow and the day thereafter. What land is to be given away finally and for good to independent states, land which will be lost to us forever? What will it be? The hon. the Prime Minister wants us to support his policy. But surely then there is a provincial election and another parliamentary election. There is a political dispute, a healthy dialogue in South Africa. Let us make it healthy by telling the people exactly what the Government are calling upon them to do. That is our challenge. But they cannot and will not tell us.

The hon. the Prime Minister asked us about section 77 and said that we should not give him mere words. I could tell him by way of interjection that there is nothing which is more mere verbiage on the Statute Book of South Africa than section 77. It is applied to a limited extent. It affects about 2 per cent of the people and in almost every case, except in the case of the white workers who do the night soil cartage in Durban, it is subjected to so many exemptions that even those rules and decrees are meaningless. It is meaningless in practice. The United Party has said again and again, and we say it to-day, that we have a positive policy. We accept that there will be changes in the labour pattern of South Africa which will be brought about through the machinery of collective bargaining. There will be protection for the workers, not only in the trade unions and in the concern of the Government for them, but there will be protection in the rate for the job which will be applied wherever there is the danger of unfair competition. There will be the right of appeal to the Industrial Tribunal by any worker who feels that he has been unjustly or unfairly treated. There are many more. I do not want to conduct a debate on that now. But why does the Prime Minister ask these questions? Only for effect, when, if he were a student of South African politics, he should have known the answers before he put the questions.

The hon. the Prime Minister made the surprising statement that my hon. Leader is afraid to take uo an attitude—“standpunt in te neem”—in South Africa. He then quoted the example of the loading and unloading of constituencies. Dr. Verwoerd was a man who was capable of taking up a point of view. He believed, like many people, that parliamentary procedure should be reformed. That was his attitude, but it was also part of his attitude that those reforms could only be brought about as a result of the deliberations of a select committee where the decisions were unanimous.

Exactly.

So he was afraid to take up a point of view, was he?

Quite correct.

The Prime Minister says, “Quite correct”; Dr. Verwoerd was afraid of taking up a point of view.

He was not afraid of saying whether he was in favour of loading or of unloading.

The United Party, and I know the Nationalist Party too, have from time to time decided that reforms had to take place. There is a growing body of opinion that reforms are necessary in our Electoral Act in regard to postal votes, the question of delimitation and the role the Senate should play in the Parliament of South Africa. The United Party believes that the time will come—even if we are not in power, I think it will come— that these matters will be referred to a select committee, perhaps a joint select committee of the two Houses, in order that they may be thrashed out. I now want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister perfectly clearly what our attitude is. Whatever changes are considered necessary, we firmly believe they should not be the subject of political disputes, but that they should be the result of unanimity between the major parties in this country. That is our attitude and that attitude was taken by my Leader without any question. The Prime Minister was very keen that we should take up attitudes and one of the things he is concerned about is “karaktermoord”, character assassination. The United Party has attacked three people very strongly in this House. They were the former Minister. Mr. Haak, and the present Minister of Mines. We also attacked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the previous Parliament, Dr. Hertzog. We attacked them.

But not his character.

And we attacked them very successfully. We attacked Dr. Hertzog right out of the major Ministry he had.

You did?

We attacked the Minister of Health on a matter on which we could move a reduction of salary, and that was his unreasoned and indefensible attack upon the person and the companies of Mr Harry Oppenheimer. We did it with such success that he was taken out of that Ministry of Planning and it was not necessary for us to move a reduction in his salary. Surely if we have shifted the Minister it is more effective than a reduction in salary. I want to emphasize this: we at least, when we attacked these gentlemen, attacked them here in Parliament where they could answer and where the Prime Minister can canswer on their behalf; and I rather admire the Prime Minister for his Quixotic attitude in defending the indefensible out of loyality. I think that is a nice characteristic, but he can take it too far. because he must decide between loyalty to his colleagues and loyalty to the interests of South Africa—some time or other. But what I want to take exception to is the way in which the hon. member for Randburg yesterday attacked an honourable citizen of South Africa, a political opponent and a worthy political opponent, on an occasion when he could not reply. Everything he said about Mr. Horace van Rensburg, the candidate who opposed him in his seat in Parliament and who is going to win Randburg in the provincial election, was untrue. I will give you one example, Sir. He said that Mr. Horace van Rensburg was suspended by the City Council United Party Caucus of Johannesburg becaust he had called—and you will forgive me. Sir, because he used the expression—the hon. the Prime Minister a bloody fool. Now I know Mr. van Rensburg. He is a man of definite opinions, but that is not the language he uses. This morning I consulted city councillors and the chairman of the caucus of the United Party in the City Council and I am authorized to say in this House that there is not a word of truth in that allegation. Now, far be it from me to impugn his honour in any way. but I do want to reproach him for being so reckless of the truth when he is attacking the character of a man who cannot defend himself in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! I now rule that the word “gossip-monger” (skinderbek) may no longer be used in this House, and the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

I am grateful and I hope the hon. member will have the courage to withdraw that allegation, because he can accept the word of ail the people concerned who know—and he does not know, because he is not a member of the United Party Caucus—that it is untrue.

Was the story in the petition not true?

And I appeal to the hon. member, for the sake of the honour and the dignity of Parliament, to withdraw that allegation, which he should never have made if he had checked his facts.

Now we are going into a provincial election and we must have clarity. But what clarity can we have when on major issues before South Africa members of the Cabinet, not at public meetings but in this House, speak with two different and irreconcilable voices? And I am surprised at the hon. the Prime Minister. We asked him and we gave him opportunities while he was speaking. We asked him questions and he did not answer. I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to one example of this. Speaking in this House on September 7th. Column 3510, of Hansard, the Minister of Bantu Administration said—

He was busy with another sentence when the hon. member for Turffontein asked him: What about the Coloureds? With his customary courtesy the Minister replied—

Is that the policy of the Government? But then the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs spoke in this House on the 29th of last month, the day before yesterday, and the following happened. He said—

Vir die Kleurlinge ook?

Ja, vir die Kleurlinge en vir die blankes, vir ons wat hierdie land gaan deel in die toekoms.

En die Bantoes?

Ja, vir die Bantoes ook tot tyd en wyl hulle in hulle eie aparte state afgeskei is. Ek gaan nie ’n ander Minister repudieer nie …

And then he promptly repudiated another Minister—

How can one find a greater contradiction? I say that rather than put trick questions to the United Party, the hon. the Prime Minister owes it to South Africa once and for all to stand up and to tell us clearly what the policy of the Nationalist Party is towards the 2 million people in South Africa who are Coloured, 90 per cent of whom are Afrikaans speaking and belong to his church and my church, the D.R. Church, and 99 per cent of whom are civilized people. What is their future? What is their hope? The Prime Minister could wax eloquently sarcastic and ironical in asking my hon. Leader about the colour of representation in this Parliament, but at least my hon. Leader has a policy for these people. What is our policy? We say they must join with us in a federal connection, in a federal bond. What is his policy? I say the Prime Minister has no right to go to the people in this provincial election with such a vacuum in his policy. And before he starts asking us trick questions he should sweep before his own door.

My time is unfortunately shorter than I thought. The hon. the Prime Minister says we have come to the end of the session and what have we achieved? I will tell him what we have achieved: Confusion, lack of direction, lack of leadership, a reversion to verkramptheid on the part of the Government. On the part of the United Party we have achieved this, that the nation now know more clearly than they have before what has always been our point of view—but the facts are beginning to speak more loudly for us than ever before—that we stand for a South Africa strong enough, endowed enough with power and with means, to solve its problems justly. That is basic to our attitude. It is tragic that this Government will not avail itself of the resources we have in South Africa, especially the human resources, to make us so strong and so powerful that we can at least attempt with some hope of success to find a just solution to our problems.

Sir, I have here articles of Austrilia that I would like to commend to every member in this House, which appeared as a supplement to the Economist of the 22nd August, Australia found itself in great difficulty with the collapse of the wool market, with the appearance of man-made fibres in competition with wool, and with problems in connection with the export of wheat—wheat and wool being its major exports. But, Sir, in spite of that Australia is now entering a period of prosperity which is probably equalled only by Japan, because it is exporting the tremendous mineral resources available in Australia. We can do the same in South Africa; people are clamouring for minerals. There is a need for them. But we spend time arguing whether the railway line from the mines should go to Port Elizabeth or to Saldanha Bay. In the meantime the locusts are eating the years and this Prime Minister and this Government are helpless. I was shocked to-day, Sir, to learn that it was necessary to put an embargo on all rail transport to South-West Africa except in the case of utterly essential goods. What is happening to our infrastructure? It is not for the Railways to judge the future of this country; that is the function of the Cabinet. Why does the Government not see what is happening in the country; why do they not plan; why are they not ahead of the needs of the people; why are they always behind and falling further behind? Sir, in Australia they can do it. Australia’s annual exports of minerals are expected by the year 1980 to be more than all the exports put together have been up to now. Sir, we have the same opportunity, but we are missing it. If ever there was a need in a country to export, to get a sound balance of payments, to get money into the country, to expand the country, to use its human resources, that need exists in South Africa. We need it for strategic reasons; we need it for reasons of adjustment among the races. We need it because time is our greatest ally and only strength can give us time, but we plead in vain, Sir. Speech after speech by the Leader of the Opposition during this session showed the way to the Government, but What did we get? We got a debate at the level that we saw in this House yesterday and we get the superficialities of which the Prime Minister made himself guilty for more than an hour to-day. There is no attempt to get to grips with the realities of South Africa. There is no attempt to realize that if we want to survive we must be strong. And we can be strong. They tell us that inflation is the greatest problem Australia has with its tremendous progress, because of the shortage of manpower. We can have greater expansion and greater progress than Australia. We have the same resources, plus and plus and plus more resources; we need not have inflation because of the shortage of manpower because God has given us 20 million people.

One nation.

But we are too small and too petty and too bigoted and too afraid to use the human beings—God’s creatures— who are subjects and citizens of the Republic of South Africa. Sir, if anybody asks me what this session has brought us, my reply is this: It has brought us this contrast: From the Government side we have had petty hatreds, as revealed by the hon. member for Stilfontein last night, or otherwise amusing superficialities from the Prime Minister—amusing but nothing more. From the Official Opposition we have had realities, concern for the future of South Africa and an insight into the needs of South Africa. Sir, I go to the provincial election with more courage than the hon. the Prime Minister.

Sir, in this debate a great deal has been said on a great variety of subjects, but we did not hear much on financial and economic matters. I was surprised, though, that the hon. member for Wynberg, who according to the newspapers was also to have participated in this debate, did not subsequently venture to do so. Perhaps it was sensible of her, under the circumstances, to stay out of the debate.

The hon. member for Yeoville concluded his speech with a lot of hollow cries and allegations, which he did not in any way support.

A Salvation Army speech.

But we are used to that. We had dozens and hundreds of allegations of that kind in the speech made by his Leader. Right at the end of his speech the hon. member tried to give an impression of what he had experienced during this session. Mr. Speaker, what we experienced, is that there is a big difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House. On this side of the House we have a party which wants to respect and build up, recognize and develop what is sacred to us and to other people. But on that side of the House we have a party which wants to demolish, a party which wants to sacrifice its nationhood and even its identity. That is the difference between these two parties. That is the underlying philosophy of our entire policy. It is also that philolophy which forms the major difference between the policy of this side of the House in respect of the future of South Africa and its multinationality, and the policy of that side of the House which wants a conglomeration of everything in one. We want to retain our identity, not only for ourselves alone, but also for any other independent part of South Africa which is proud of what is its own. That is the difference. This is also how it became quite apparent in this debate.

I just want to argue a few points mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville. He tried, as hon. members on that side of the House have often tried, to prove that different opinions were expressed by different Ministers. He referred to what the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said, i.e. that the Whites do not want to share control in South Africa. He compared this to an allegation made by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs who said that South Africa was to be shared by all of us. The one is “control” and the other is “share”. [Interjections]. The hon. members must read it again. That hon. member is like a person walking past a cemetery and whistling to keep his courage up. As far as I am concerned, there is a very clear difference between “control” and “share”. The hon. member spoke about the Coloured Persons’ Council. He then said that a gap had been left in the policy of this party. Now I want to ask the hon. member who gave the Coloureds the constitutional development they have to-day?

The deterioration?

That hon. member has already made his speech!

But you are asking questions?

I shall furnish the replies myself. What party removed the Coloureds from the common voters roll?

And placed them on a separate roll?

On a separate roll. What party deprived them of their representation in this House? What party gave them the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council? What party placed them in a position where they could exercise control over their own affairs? What party placed them in a position where they could control and administer R60 million per annum? Was it that side of the House, the United Party, that did that? No that party kept them on as minions without ever offering the Coloureds a future.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Did the National Party not say that the abolition of this representation and the establishment of the Representative Council were not related, and that they were two separate matters?

That may be so. I am not prepared to argue about that now. The statement I am making here is that the development which took place in the past in respect of the Coloureds, was owing to this Government. The National Party placed them in that strong position in which they find themselves to-day in respect of the control over their own people. Now the hon. member for Yeoville comes along and states that there is a deficiency (holte). But we are not merely uttering hollow words to the Coloureds; our deeds prove what the policy of this party in respect of the Coloureds is. I do not know why the hon. member is always asking, “What about the Coloureds,” and why he is so concerned about that? Surely he knows what we have done with the Coloureds. Surely he knows where they stand to-day. The hon. member referred here to the Electoral Act. He said that this should be a measure on which there was agreement. But is there not such a thing as every person having his own opinion on matters? That is our complaint against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am prepared to say that I am in favour of loading and deloading as it exists to-day. I am saying this now, and I am also prepared to say this on a Select Committee if I had to serve on one, unless I am dissuaded otherwise. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to tell us. That is all we have against him. I just want him, as Leader of that side of the House, to disclose his personal opinion on these matters, and he is not prepared to do so. I should like to raise a few other matters and then reply to arguments put forward in this debate.

As far as financial and economic matters are concerned, attempts were made to create a crisis atmosphere. I want to issue the warning to-day that we should not, in circumstances such as we are experiencing to-day, create an atmosphere of crisis. There is no crisis. We are not experiencing any crisis in the economic sphere. There are admittedly difficulties which crop up from time to time, and it will be our task to iron out those difficulties. I should like to refer to the report of the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch in regard to our economic position to-day. According to them industrialists expect an increase of 10 per cent in the volume of manufacture this year, although we had to listen to this Jeremiad at the beginning of the debate from the hon. member for Parktown on the lack of growth which exists at present and on the increase in inflation which is expected in the coming period. In so far as difficulties exist, and in so far as there are problems, we have heard that consultations will be held with organized industry. Hon. members have also heard the Prime Minister indicate that a commission under the chairmanship of the Economic Advisor of the Prime Minister has been appointed to study matters and to formulate future lines of action in the economic sphere. We are aware that there is a tendency for prices to increase. There is a tendency towards inflation. This is true, and we are concerned about it, and the hon. the Minister of Finance has already done what was necessary in the Budget to deal with this question as a priority. The hon. the Opposition of course, through their speakers, gladly accept the increased salaries for public servants and others. One thing I cannot understand, and this is something which is really a little ridiculous, is that people accept increased salaries—this is politics of course—but that at the same time they do not expect that as a result of the increased salaries there will be an overflow to increased consumption, and that as a result of increased consumption there will also be higher prices. To me it is obvious that if there are increased salaries and if there is more money in circulation there will be an increased demand and that the result of the increased demand will be higher prices. If we make an analysis of the increase in prices for the year ending July 1970 we find that the greatest increases took place in housing and in medical services. Something was done about that in this Budget. In respect of the increasing costs of housing, assistance was given in the form of an interest subsidy on housing loans. As far as medical services are concerned, the sphere which showed the second highest increase during the past year, the hon. members of the Opposition can certainly not blame the labour problem and least of all the Bantu position in South Africa. I admit that price increases over the past year have been high, but I think that it is quite wrong to single out one year and then to come to a decision on the basis of that one year. In the decade 1959 to 1969 South Africa has maintained an excellent record. I want to refer hon. members to the Financial Mail of 25th September. Surely hon. members accept that this is not a publication which is favourably disposed towards this Government. The Financial Mail of 25th September this year placed South Africa fourth among 25 countries in regard to price stability. That is the reply to the charge we have heard in respect of price increases, inter alia from the hon. member for Parktown, namely that South Africa was placed fourth in a list of 25 countries throughout the world as far as its price stability is concerned. In respect of the danger of price increases, it will be our responsibility to cope with them.

The inflationistic pressure we are experiencing to-day is not only attributable to cost factors which may perhaps have arisen as a result of the labour problems which exist in one sphere or another. There are also demand factors which have played an exceptionally important role. If one glances at the considerable expansion in bank credit which was granted, the large increase in the level of consumption which has taken place recently, the gross domestic spending, which exceeds the national product to such a large extent—a matter which we are concerned about—one arrives at the conclusion that these circumstances testify to the fact that demand inflation does in fact exist. As far as cost inflation is concerned, a considerable amount is in fact being done in the Budget to solve the problem The training of artisans, higher education and immigration are the three aspects in respect of which something can be done to cope with the cost inflation which exists at the moment. The Budget now before us wants to make a contribution in these respects.

As far as labour is concerned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also made an attempt here to indicate that there is an alleged difference of interpretation among the various Ministers. He then said that the Minister of Finance had said that he wanted to hold talks with organized industry and wanted to help them with more labour in the metropolitan areas. Then the Minister of Finance is alleged to have said that the labour to which he referred, included Bantu labour as well, while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleges that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development …

No, that is not what I said.

What did the hon. the Leader say then?

The Minister of Finance did not say to what labour he was referring.

Oh, I thought the hon. the Leader said the Minister had subsequently said that this included Bantu labour.

It was the Prime Minister who indicated that.

By implication.

Then it is the Prime Minister who indicated that, while the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, as well as the Minister of Labour, said that this did not apply to Bantu labour. The relevant point which Dr. Diederichs made, is the following—I quote—

That is what he said. Now I should just like to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that, in so far as he made the deduction that what Dr. Diederichs said also referred to Bantu labour, it was correct. Equally correct was the assertion that the Minister of Labour had said that it did not refer to more Bantu which had to be taken to the metropolitan areas. Whatever was said, I should like, for the sake of clarity, to give the hon. the Leader a definition of the position. I was present, together with the Minister of Finance, when we held the first interview with organized industry here in Cape Town a short while ago. It is probably not necessary for me to give a full account of that now. but the approach of the Minister of Finance, in so far as he has conveyed it according to that quotation I made, as well as in his conduct towards these people, is that we must investigate the problems of the industrialists in regard to decentralization and that we must find the means, if there are problems, to make it easier for the industries to decentralize. In so far as we can succeed in finding means of encouraging them to decentralize, we must as a result of the departure of industries from the metropolitan areas make the labour which had previously been employed there available. That labour will then to an increasing extent have to be made available to the industries remaining behind in the metropolitan areas.

It is not necessary to negotiate on that?

Sir, we are not negotiating on that. We are negotiating in order to determine what the problems of the industrialists are and to find out how they can be encouraged to decentralize. Hon. members need not be so surprised about this. I can give them the assurance that organized industry is not opposed to decentralization. Only, there are certain financial and physical problems in that connection. But organized industry is not opposed to it. I do not know whether the hon. member for Hillbrow thinks that this is not the case. In principle they are not opposed to it, but the means must be found to encourage them to a greater extent. The negotiations which the Minister of Finance envisaged are in fact aimed at that.

To make already available Native labour available?

Sir. I can only furnish the hon. member for Yeoville with the explanation. I cannot give him the common sense with which to think. If there is labour in the metropolitan areas at present which is being used by industrialists who are going to move to border areas, that labour will after all be made available. If they do not take that labour with them, the labour will to a larger extent be available for the industries which remain behind. It will not be necessary then to obtain labour from outside. Does the hon. member still not understand this?

You do not understand it yourself.

Sir, if the hon. member is still unable to understand it, I shall be able to quote from Hansard in the provincial election to prove how matters stand with the United Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated the following, inter alia, in his speech—

I do not differ with the Leader of the Opposition. That is precisely what I said during the discussion of my Vote. I said that we wanted to make efforts to ensure that the industries which had to remain in the metropolitan areas did not stagnate. We want them to survive. There is a certain framework in the policy of the Government which we must as far as possible seek to achieve, but we do not want the industries in the metropolitan areas to stagnate. They must continue to operate. We are aware that the industries in the urban areas will now and in the future have to bear a greater economic burden, until such time as the other areas outside have been properly expanded and developed in order to make their contribution as well. In that respect I do not differ in any way with the hon. member. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to economic growth in South Africa. He referred to countries elsewhere in the world and asked the Prime Minister whether he realized that the common market had during the past decade developed as rapidly as South Africa, while the growth rate in the United States had been slightly less. I do not know why the hon. member said that, nor do I know on the basis of what authority he obtained that information.

I spoke about the per capita basis. That is my whole point.

Is that the point? Now I should like to refer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to another brochure, called “Scope for Investment”. This is also a publication which is not favourably disposed towards this side of the House. I should like to indicate what that publication has to say about the matter raised here by the hon. member. I am quoting as follows—

This is as far as the fifties are concerned—

That is the reply.

Only marginally so.

The hon. members on that side who of course always present the worst side of the picture, are saying that this was only by a margin. Nevertheless it is so. But, if we bear in mind the structure of our population and the fact that in the sixties we performed better per capita than any other country of the world, then these are wonderful results, of which we could be proud.

That is wrong. It was not better than any country in the world.

That was a very great exaggeration.

North America and Western Europe, forget about the rest. The hon. member said that this is not the whole world. I beg his pardon. It is North America and Western Europe, those are the countries to which reference was made.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the growth rate. He spoke about the 10 per cent. Earlier in this Session we heard of Solomon. I should now like to quote to the hon. the Leader a few words spoken by Solomon. He said: “It is not good for a man to be without knowledge, and he who hasteth with his feet, sinneth.” This also applies to what the hon. member said about the 10 per cent growth, which he now wants. “It is not good for a man to be without knowledge, and he who hasteth with his feet, sinneth.” The hon. member has only one thing in mind, and that is a high growth rate of 10 per cent, regardless of the prejudicial consequences which such a growth rate may perhaps imply. After much careful consideration and taking into consideration all the production factors, we in South Africa decided on a growth rate of 5½ per cent as a realistic growth rate for South Africa. The hon. member, for example, gives no indication of the conditions of inflation and the need for investment in the infrastructure, which is going to be created by a growth rate such as the one he is indicating there. He has blinkers on. All that he wants is a growth rate without taking into consideration all the implications which go hand in hand with it.

The hon. member for Parktown, who for understandable reasons is not here to-day and who has made his excuses, referred at the end of his speech to a great variety of matters which were staring him in the face, as it were. He spoke of the cost of living, of the difficulty of getting a house, and of the fact that telephones will become more expensive. He also spoke about salary increases which would be swallowed up by the increased prices. The hon. member also said that there were no clear guiding lines according to which we should develop our economy and according to which we should achieve our growth in South Africa. But now I must say that the hon. member takes no cognizance of our economic development programme, to which he apparently attaches no value, but which to a large extent gives us guidance and direction in respect of our development and growth in South Africa. In the Economic Advisory Council every sector of our national economy is represented, in order to plan in this way the guiding lines for our economic development. But what is more the hon. member for Parktown and other hon. members opposite think only of industries and business firms, but they ignore entirely what had been in respect of the provision of the infrastructure and the development of other state projects in South Africa. They never speak about our steel production and they never give thought to our power generation which has expanded so phenomenally during the past few years. They do not want to discuss water provision in the Budget on which we are spending more than R100 million this year, and which is being developed more rapidly than has ever been done before in the history of the country. They do not think of the Railways and Harbours services which are being rendered and which must be developed, and they do not think of the airways development. They do not mention the building of national roads, and they do not talk about the universities for whom so much is being appropriated in this year’s Budget, or housing and the health services and all the other manifold aspects which I cannot mention. It is very easy to criticize, but if one would only look around, the positive side is also to be seen and there is a great deal of which we can be proud.

I said a moment ago that the hon. member for Parktown had said that the salary increases would be swallowed up by the price increases. I do not think the hon. member is in earnest. Surely the hon. member will agree with me that salary increases were almost twice as much as the price increases during the past few years. How on earth can the salary increases now be swallowed up by the price increases, if the salary increases are twice as much as the price increase? Surely that is nonsense.

With inflation of 4 to 5 per cent.

I said in the Budget debate that our standard of living had been rising more rapidly than prices had been increasing all these years, and this is definitely the case. The hon. member also discussed the sales duty and the loan levies. Sir, this sales duty is a once only, measure and it makes a very slight difference to the price increases. When the sales duty was introduced, it made a difference of only I per cent. This was a once only difference; and this sales duty which has now been increased and which the hon. member was apparently talking about, only made a difference of one-tenth of I per cent on the prices. It is not even worthwhile discussing it.

The hon. member concluded by saying how sorry he felt for the pensioners. He then asked how we could expect a pensioner to live on R35 per month. Do you know, Sir, they are the last people to talk about pensions. I had the list of pensions here from 1935 when the United Party was already in power, up to 1947, and they remained precisely the same.

What were they in comparison to the national income then and now?

[Interjections.] The hon. members will only find themselves in worse difficulties. I remember this from 1935, already, and before that it was also R10 per month. In 1947 it was still R10 per month, despite the war conditions and the major increase in prices which had taken place during the war. Nothing was done in regard to the pensions for the poor old people. Up to 1947 the pensions stood at R10. Then the National Party Government came into power in 1948. Immediately after the National Party came into power, the pensions was increased, and from 1948 until to-day it has increased from R10 to R35, in other words by 250 per cent—far more than the cost of living has increased during that period. That is the last thing hon. members on that side should talk about.

They wanted to let the elderly people die of hunger.

In this debate labour was the theme throughout, and was continually being harped on. I think we must make it clear that while on the one hand we want economic growth, there rests at the same time a major and responsible task on us to ensure that that growth does not take place at the expense of our survival, and that we do not allow an influx of non-white workers to the cities for the sake of that growth to the detriment of the survival of the Whites in South Africa.

It will not be to the detriment of the Whites.

Hon. members on that side are very quick to tell us: “We are in favour of influx control; we do not want to abolish it”, but what do they want? If we say it must be controlled, and we are in fact controlling it, they are dissatisfied. On the one hand they say they are in favour of control, but on the other they are not satisfied when we do in fact apply control.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated what changes we would effect.

They want control, but it must be such an unbridled control that our survival and our position is endangered thereby.

A wild supposition.

We realize that it is important that we must have economic growth in South Africa, but it is equally important that we have labour peace in South Africa, and what is even more important, is that white survival is not endangered.

That you are doing everyday with your Bantustan policy.

Sir, this entire question is an integral part of the policy of the National Party. It is part of the policy of the National Party because we have a policy of separate development in terms of which we want the Bantu to have their own homelands, in which they and their families must live, in which they must be established and where they must exercise their political rights.

And the Coloureds?

Hon. members on the opposite side now want to intimate that the Government is not in earnest with this policy of separate development. Our economic policy, our labour policy, as I have said, is part of this. You cannot separate the one from the other. Sir, do you know what the hon. member for Sea Point did the other evening? He asked which of us wanted an independent Bantu state in South Africa. He said nobody wanted it.

And he is right too.

Sir, there is one person standing here who wants it, myself!

All of us.

Sir, let us clear up this matter once and for all. Hon. members on that side are hawking the story about outside that this policy of the National Party Government is a sham policy.

But your Chief Whip says so.

You lie. I said it was a process of evolution.

On a point of order, Sir, has the hon. the Chief Whip withdrawn that statement?

But surely he was lying, Mr. Speaker.

Order!

Why is he telling such fibs?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

Hon. members of the Opposition are going about outside this House saying the Government is not in earnest with this policy, with the eventual establishment of politically independent states. I want to state clearly and unequivocally here to-day that this is the policy of this party, from the Prime Minister down to the most junior backbencher. I believe that this policy must be implemented.

Until independence is achieved?

There is not a single “hear, hear” to be heard on that side.

Hon. members on this side are not paid to say “hear, hear”. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not make a joke of Parliament. The hon. Minister may proceed.

Sir, the policy of this party is not merely being announced here or outside when there is an election; we have stated it in the council chambers of the world, and we adhere to it. I think it is a good thing that we should repeatedly get to know what the policy of this party is in respect of independent Bantu states, to which we are applying our efforts, and in which we on this side believe. In 1963 Mr. Gerhard Jooste, when he was head of our mission at U.N., said, inter alia, the following in regard to our policy. He made the position so clear that I should like to quote this to hon. members—

I want to inform hon. members of the Opposition that we do not change our policy every Monday.

Only Wednesdays and Fridays.

Our policy is the same to-day as it has always been. Our Bantu policy is stated in the same form to-day as it was originally set out. He said—

He went on to say—

Which Nationalist Minister had ever said that before.

This is what was said at the time by the Prime Minister; Dr. Verwoerd said this in 1961. Sir, the hon. member for Sea Point asked here the other day who of us wanted to give the Bantu states independence. There is no doubt about that. This is our policy—political independence coupled with economic interdependence. This is what we advocate, and this is what we are seeking to achieve. There must be no doubt about this, because I know one of these days, when we are fighting the provincial election, hon. members on the opposite side will again say outside: “The National Party is playing at politics; they are not in earnest with their policy.” That is why I want to state unequivocally here that we will continue to implement this policy step by step, when it becomes possible to do so, until total political independence for the Bantu in their separate areas is achieved. In the economic sphere we will be interdependent with them as we are now prepared to co-operate with other neighbouring states to the north of us in the economic sphere. But I have said that there is a difference in philosophy between this side of the House and that side of the House. Unfortunately this is the case. The philosophy of that side of the House is a philosophy of sacrifice, of giving away what is their own. We on this side of the House are not prepared to do so. I am sorry that it is necessary for me to-day to hold up a foreigner as an example to that side of the House to put the policy of South Africa in its true perspective. Unfortunately I do not get this from the United Party when it has to put South Africa’s policy. What I wanted to quote now is quite interesting. Last year our Springbok rugby team toured England and towards the end of the tour they played a match against the Barbarians. That evening a dinner was arranged for the teams by the Barbarian Club. The president of the Barbarian Football Club, Mr. Glyn Hughes, made a speech on that occasion. Now I am sorry that I have to hold up an Englishman from England, actually a stranger in South Africa, as an example to the United Party of how one should act in regard to one’s own people.

He is not an Englishman, he is a Welshman.

Very well then, let that be as it may. In any case he made the speech in English. I should like to ask the United Party to reflect on their attitude towards South Africa and also to bear buth Africa’s interests in mind. They must not merely play at politics as the hon. member for Yeoville is prepared to do whenever he rises to his feet to speak. Mr. Hughes said the following—

Then he goes on to say:

If I could only succeed in persuading the United Party, even if they did not believe in all the particulars, to state the standpoint of South Africa as it was stated here by a person who is not a South African, then I would have been far more proud of them. But unfortunately we do not find this. Unfortunately they follow a policy of disparagement as was done yesterday evening by the hon. member for King William’s Town. On their part we find a disparagement of what belongs to us, of our own language and culture.

Does South Africa not belong to you?

After all he wants to give his Afrikaner nationhood away. He has no respect for the separate language and culture of the various non-White races. Respect will be lost for good, and everything must be lumped and mixed together in a South African federation. This National Party will not only ensure the economic prosperity of South Africa, but, will, in spite of the United Party, also ensure South Africa’s welfare and security. We shall work for prosperity and for peace, but above all we shall work for internal security.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, as is customary this Bill deals with various matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Railway and Harbour Fund. I do not consider it necessary to deal with each clause in detail, since the various clauses are being explained in the explanatory memorandum, which hon. members have before them. If any hon. member requires more information about some aspect or other, I shall do my best to furnish further particulars.

As regards clause 6> of the explanatory memorandum, it may be just pointed out that the reference to subsection (1) (a) and (b) in paragraph 2 thereof should read “subsections (1) (a) and (b) and (2)”, whereas the reference to subsection (2) in the subsequent paragraph should be “subsection (3)”. I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill covers a number of completely unrelated items and I think they can be better dealt with during the Committee Stage. There are one or two matters which I would like to comment on. The first is found in clauses I and 2 of the Bill. Here we establish the principle of transferring items from Revenue Account to the Loan Account in order to balance the Loan Account. It means that the taxpayer, in addition to paying tax to cover revenue expenditure, now also has to pay to balance the Loan Account. The fact that the taxpayer is bearing part of the Loan Account burden, means that the present generation is paying for something which the future generation will have the benefit of. I think it should be made clear to the taxpayer that this will be the effect of these clauses.

Secondly the Bill provides for a transfer of R12 million from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the National Road Fund. This is a new way of dealing with the matter. In the past it was dealt with by other means. This is a new innovation and perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us the reason for adopting this new procedure.

Thirdly, clause 3 of the Bill makes provision for any deficiency in the Bantu Education Account for the year 1971-’72 to be met from Revenue Account. In other words, the taxpayer will for at least this year and next year make a direct contribution for Bantu Education. This is a step we welcome. In the past we have criticized the Government’s provision for Bantu Education because the amount had been pegged. This is an improvement and it has our support. Except for these few remarks, we have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to paragraph (b). As was said by the hon. member for Pinetown, the method of voting this R12 million to the Road Fund is unusual, if one reads the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance when he referred to this item in his Budget. He said that it had become apparent that additional funds would have to be provided to finance the National Road Fund, which had to bear the cost of radical modernization of our national roads in the years ahead. I quote—

It comes as quite a surprise when we find that this is the method that has been decided upon to vote this money. We have no objection to this fund being given the extra money. This year something like R56,200,000 will come from the six cents duty allocated by the Act (Act 42 of 1935). With the added R12 million it will come to R68,200,000. But we are disappointed that the Act itself was not amended. The actual amount of R12 million is approximately 1.3 cents per gallon. One would have thought that the Government would have come forward with an amendment to the Act and increase the allocation from the duty and excise tax.

The position is that next year, when the National Road Fund wants extra money— there is going to be more and more money required for the construction of roads—the Treasury might find itself not in the position or not inclined to give this extra money. But I think it is well to remember that on every gallon of petrol the motorist buys, he pays an indirect tax of 12.08 cents. Six cents is at the present moment allocated from the fund, and now another R12 million is added to the fund. Having read the history of this particular fund and the basis thereof, and when one observes the magnificent roads that have been built, one feels that the provision of this money should be done through Act 42 of 1935.

Then we and the National Road Fund would know from year to year what funds could be expected and what should be budgeted for. At the present moment all they can budget for, is the money that is going to accrue from the six cents levy, with the hope that they may get an additional amount from the Treasury. When one reads the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech, it seems that something went wrong here. I think it was the full intention of the hon. the Minister not to transfer this money from Revenue to Capital Account in this manner, but actually to transfer this money from the tax on petrol. What we should have had, was a Bill amending the National Roads Fund. Then we could have this added allocation year after year. As more petrol was used, the fund would have increased, and the money would have become available for the building of our roads. Now we are going to be in this unhappy position that the Minister of Transport will have to go to the Treasury every year and say: ‘Well, you gave me R12 million last year; can you now give me R14 million?” Actually, when this Act was originally introduced, to stop that procedure was one of the reasons why the amount was to come from the revenue from petrol. It would be on a very sounder basis if we had the National Road Fund Act amended. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister concerned whether he would not give consideration to the matter. I think it is a bit late to do it now. But when the Budget is introduced next year, the National Roads Act should be amended to this effect, to put the matter on a sounder basis than it is at the present moment.

Mr. Chairman, it would probably satisfy the hon. member for Salt River completely if I told him that it is the intention to amend the Act next year. There are, in addition, other amendments which have to be effected as a result of the introduction of metrication. They go hand in hand with this matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, in 1954 the Minister of Finance announced a change in policy with regard to the financing of Bantu education. Instead of the Treasury providing the funds to meet the requirements of Bantu education, it was provided in that Budget that £6½ million (R13 million) would be set aside for that purpose. The figure would be pegged in future.

What was that?

I said “pegged”— p-e-g-g-e-d. The Deputy Minister does not seem to know what I am talking about when I use the word “pegged”.

I do know, but did not catch the word.

I think I should remind the Deputy Minister of what the then Minister of Native Affairs said in this regard. Just to remind him what the position was, I want to explain that at the time an accusation had been levelled at the Minister of Finance. Dr. Verwoerd who was then Minister of Native Affairs, then said (Hansard, 1954, Col. 6211)—

That was the attitude of the then Minister of Native Affairs, who was also responsible then for Native education. I am not going to read further from this speech now, but if the Deputy Minister will read further in that speech, he will see that Dr. Verwoerd then went on to blame the previous Minister of Finance, Mr. Hofmeyr, for the great increase in the expenditure of Bantu education. That attack on Mr. Hofmeyr was of course consistent with Nationalist policy and Nationalist attitudes at the time. It found favour. The pegging of expenditure was very well received by Nationalist politicians. The story they spread to the country was that they were at last restricting the expenditure on Native education, in contradiction to the policy of the United Party and Mr. Hofmeyr. The impression was created that the Bantu were paying for the education themselves, except for the subsidy of £6½ million. But what really happened? The Government merely financed Bantu education in a different way. It is not so easy to ascertain how much they spent on Bantu education. My information is that it was in the neighbourhood of …

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far. It is only the deficiency in the account which can be discussed under clause 3.

That is just what I am discussing, Sir. I am discussing the deficiency in the account.

The hon. member is discussing the principle of the whole matter.

Sir, over the years Parliament met this deficiency by means of moneys from Loan Account. When in the past Revenue paid for Bantu education it only paid R13 million. The shortfall was made up by loans. That is what I am talking about. This was a subterfuge. The loan was made free of interest to the Bantu Education Account. It never had to be repaid. And it is not going to be repaid. In that way there was an attempt to hide the exact amount that was being spent on Bantu Education by the taxpayer. Now, our present Minister of Finance in his Budget speech said that it was pointless to continue increasing the indebtedness of the Bantu Education Account by simply advancing further loans. He therefore proposes to transfer the sum of R17 million which he estimates to be the shortfall on Revenue this year from Treasury to the Bantu Education Account What was done from the Loan Account in the past the Minister now proposes to do from Revenue, as was done before the change in policy. That is what I want to remind hon. members of. We have no objection to the making up of the shortfall by transferring funds from the Treasury to the Bantu Education Account. Not at all. But we want hon. members and Nationalist supporters especially, to appreciate how unfair their attacks were on Mr. Hofmeyr who was a past Minister of Finance. He paid it out of Revenue and was attacked for what he was spending on Bantu Education. All the subsequent Minister of Finance did was to finance Bantu education out of loans.

It is not so easy to ascertain the amount. I tried to do it. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education can tell us the exact amount. What I have been able to ascertain is that at the moment the account stands at about R60 million. That we got from the Department. He could perhaps correct us and tell us what the exact amount is. That is if he knows. We have been trying to find out what the exact amount is by looking through the accounts but were not successful. I shall be glad if he or the Deputy Minister of Finance could tell us what the exact amount is that Bantu Education at the moment owes on this account.

The Minister of Finance has become more realistic. We have no objection to this expenditure. I want to assure hon. members on the other side that we are not going to make capital out of this during the provincial council elections. We are a responsible Opposition. We are not going to appeal to prejudice in the same way that hon. members opposite did. Not at all. We may point out that the money has been spent, but we are going to tell them too that we do not object to this expenditure. All this talk about the “kafferboeties” in the past which they applied to us …

Order! What has that to do with this clause?

Because here there is a change of policy. I will read what the explanatory memorandum says on clause 3 of the Bill.

The hon. member is now discussing “kafferboeties” and so forth. I want to know what that has to do with this clause.

I am sorry, Sir, but “kafferboeties” was quite a popular term at one time.

But it has nothing to do with the clause.

When it was applied to the United Party it was quite popular. [Interjections.] I am sorry, you are quite right. It should be “Bantoeboeties”.

The hon. member should confine himself to the clause.

But, Sir, that is what I am doing. I will read to you what the memorandum says on clause 3—

That is just what I have been pointing out to the House. [Time expired.]

I want to deal with clause 3 as well, with particular referenct to line 22, where it refers to “any deficiency existing in the Bantu Education Account,” which it then says will be met by means of a transfer. My problem is this. How can an accurate assessment be arrived at of the extent of the deficiency? I have asked this question before and I have not really received a satisfactory answer. I believe that the Opposition is entitled to know and that the taxpayers of South Africa are entitled to know. It is my understanding that the whole of the Bantu general tax is allocated to Bantu education. Over the years it was quite apparent that a large number of Bantu had not paid their tax and in terms of questions asked in Parliament it has been revealed that in the last two years. 1967-’68 and 1968-’69, over 400,000 Bantu did not pay their tax. I appreciate that this is a matter for the Department of Police, but surely the tax that is collected by the activities of the Department of Police is the concern of this Minister. My question to the Minister is whether he has any information he can give to this House to indicate the extent of the amount recovered as the result of the prosecutions of Bantu who have not paid their tax.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed on those lines. It has nothing to do with clause 3.

Sir. I accept your ruling, but with respect it means that there is a contribution from the Loan Account because there is a deficiency in the Bantu Education Account as a result of the Bantu not paying their taxes, the full extent of the payment which is a contribution to the Bantu Education Account. With respect, I suggest that the House is entitled to an explanation from the Deputy Minister.

I wish to raise two new points in connection with this clause The first one is the attack on the Government and on the Cabinet contained in the explanatory memorandum on this Bill. This memorandum reads as follows—

What I want to know is what the Government has been doing by proceeding year after year with something which they themselves now accept as pointless. We have been saying it; we have said year after year that the Government was misleading the country in regard to this matter, and we have been told that that was not so. Now the Government’s own explanatory memorandum justifies the line we have taken here year after year. The Government now in an official document, in White Paper No. 11 of 1970 accepts and admits that the United Party has been right throughout and that the procedure followed since the introduction of a separate Bantu Education Account has in fact been nothing but a bluff and an attempt to mislead the public. Now we have an admission from Government sources, officially published in this White Paper, admitting that what the Government has done all these years was pointless and wrong and that there is no point in continuing along these lines. We want to know why the Government has continued following a policy which they themselves now admit has led to a dead end, to a point where it is pointless to continue, doing something which we have said all along would never work and was nothing but a bluff. You, Sir, questioned the reference to attacks on the United Party going back some 22 years, where we were accused of being “kafferboeties” because we were spending some £6 million to £8 million on Bantu education then. We now have the position where the Government after all these years has accepted that the United Party’s policy and its attitude and its method were correct. What I want to know is this, and I am going to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, seeing that he is here, is whether he will instruct the hon. members for Vryheid, Sunnyside, Carletonville and others who have been going around the country saying: “Maar die witman betaal nie vir die Kaffer se onderwys nie” …

Order! The hon. member is making a Second Reading speech now.

I am dealing with a change of policy and I am asking the Prime Minister whether he will make this the policy of his party as well as of the Government in this House.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

I accept your ruling, Sir. Am I entitled then to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether this is only the policy of the Cabinet or whether it will be implemented and praised and announced by all members of the Nationalist Party in the election campaign that lies ahead? Is this going to be something we pass in this House, or are the Government members going to go out and say publicly: We have changed our minds; we are now going to finance Bantu education out of revenue and not out of some mythical loan, some mythical interest-free loan which need never be repaid? Because we on this side of the House are used to being attacked on all sorts of matters, and here we have a fundamental issue, namely the education of a vast section of the population of South Africa, education which must be paid for whether it be from Bantu taxation or whether it be from revenue.

Order! The hon. member is discussing a principle that has been passed by the House. Moreover, it is not contained in clause 3.

But I am praising the principle.

On a point of order, this Bill contains many principles and the Deputy Minister himself, in introducing the Second Reading, said there were many principles which could be better discussed in the Committee Stage. I submit that we can discuss the principle of each clause in the Committee Stage, because this is a general amending Bill.

Hon. members must confine themselves to clause 3, which is under discussion now.

I am glad to be able to agree with you, Sir, and to say that I support the principle wholeheartedly. That principle is something we accept, but what we object to is the manner in which it has been slipped through. Therefore we are discussing the details and not the principle involved. We are not discussing the principle which was accepted at Second Reading; we agree fully with it. What we are trying to place on record is our objection to the manner in which South Africa has been misled over the years and to emphasize that this clause is now rectifying a wrong.

Order! That is the third time that has been said. I do not want any further repetition.

Then I will not repeat that, but I will, if I may, conclude by congratulating the hon. the Prime Minister on having persuaded the Minister of Bantu Administration. who is basically responsible and who is one of the philosophers who opposed this line year after year, that his opposition to our approach that Bantu education should be financed from revenue was in fact wrong. The Prime Minister has scored a signal victory within his Cabinet and we congratulate him.

Order! That argument has been advanced as well.

I want to emphasize that in clause 3 there is no principle involved at all. [Interjections.] Give me e chance to explain. I repeat that at this stage there is no principle involved at all, the simple reason being that clause 3 is an interim arrangement making provision for the period up to March, 1972, because, as I explained to hon. members during the debate on my Vote, the Department, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, is engaged in seeking a formula for financing Bantu Education under these changed circumstances. Therefore, the entire matter is in actual fact pending or sub judice. I repeat, therefore, that no principle is involved here. The reason why we, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, are in the process of seeking a formula, is the introduction of the P.A.Y.E. system for Bantu taxpayers and of the purchase tax—the system that was introduced this year; consequently provision is being made here for the period up to March, 1972. Once we have found the formula and laid it before the Cabinet, the principle will be submitted to this House, and then we shall certainly be able to discuss it very profitably.

Why is it referred to as being “pointless”?

I have already explained what the circumstances are. I can explain it more fully by saying that the amount of R45 million which appears on this year’s Estimates for Bantu Education, is made up, inter alia, of R13 million* which comes from the Revenue Account, and R1½ million for higher education, both of which are laid down in this way in section 20 of the Exchequer and Audit Act. The amount of R17 million, which is now being transferred from Revenue Account to the Bantu Education Account, is no more than an ad hoc allocation. Further provision is now being made in clause 3, pending the search for a formula, for also making this ad hoc allocation on 31st March, 1971. and 31st March, 1972, in order to give the Department of Finance and the Department of Bantu Administration ample time to find a proper formula, which we cannot do at the moment, simply because as yet we do not have the particulars and we do not know what the position will be in respect of the P.A.Y.E. system in regard to Bantu taxation and what the position will be in respect of the revenue raised from the purchase tax. But we envisage that the revenue yielded by this tax will, once it is known, most definitely be involved very closely in this account. For that reason hon. members may rest absolutely assured that the provision being made here is for an interim measure, and definitely not for anything else.

But this clause covers the entire accumulated backlog.

But, surely, the principle does not change. I repeat that the arrangement made with the Department of Finance this year, amounts to this being an ad hoc allocation of R17 million.

Every year?

No, not every year. It is an ad hoc allocation of R17 million for this year, and the clause provides, since we do not know what the position will be on 31st March, 1971, that provision will be made again for such an ad hoc allocation to cover the backlog, and also for any backlog at the end of March, 1972. When the new facts in regard to the purchase tax and in regard to the P.A.Y.E. system for Bantu are made available to us, we shall come to this House again and discuss the principle thereof. Therefore, the position is very clear. I want to conclude by saying that I have a great deal of appreciation for the statement by the hon. member for Transkei, i.e. that he would not like to make political capital out of this matter. Now that he has obtained all the facts in regard to the matter, I assume that he will content himself with them, and that the hon. member for Durban (Point) will follow the fine example set by his senior colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I told the House that we do not want to make propaganda. The hon. the Deputy Minister has just referred to that and I can assure him that that is so. We will not make propaganda, but we now want some information.

You have got it now.

I am very sorry but I have not got the information. The hon. the Deputy Minister has now said that there is no change in principle involved. I cannot agree with him. After all, the principle accepted in 1954 was that the amount paid from the Treasury would be pegged but with this measure which is now before us, the Treasury is going to pay more. The Treasury is now going to pay at least R17 million more than the R13 million which was pegged in 1954. I cannot understand how the hon. the Minister can say that there is no change in principle. The principle as stated by Dr. Verwoerd was that R13 million or £6½ million, as it was then, would be paid by the Treasury and the Africans would pay the balance themselves.

That R13 million still stands.

The R13 million still stands, but in addition the Treasury is now going to pay R17 million more. How is the R17 million arrived at? It is the estimate of what the shortfall will be. The R13 million comes from the Treasury and is the amount that was fixed. There is R1½ million extra for higher education, which was a subsequent amount to be paid from the Treasury. In a recent account presented to this House I saw that there was R11 million paid by Bantu taxation.

That is right.

The R11 million is right. The balance, which was required every year, was provided by way of a loan. Is that not right?

That is almost right, but not quite.

I would be glad if the Deputy Minister would tell us how the balance was made up. We have the money from taxation; we have the R1½ million and we have the R13 million. How was the balance made up, if not by loan?

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to ask how the deficiency was made up. I have given my ruling.

But, Sir, may I again refer you to the White Paper? The White Paper says that there is a shortfall and that the method of financing the Bantu Education Account has for some time been unsatisfactory.

That point has been made by the hon. member too.

Surely I may refer to it again? The whole object of this clause is because it has been unsatisfactory.

The hon. member must not argue with the Chair. The hon. member raised that in his first speech.

I am raising it now as a point or order. Sir, why is this clause before us now? It is before us, because the previous method or principle was unsatisfactory. The hon. the Minister just mentioned the principle, but the previous arrangement was unsatisfactory. So the Minister of Finance says that he must have something new, and I am discussing the new method. Surely we are entitled to ask the Minister what was unsatisfactory about the previous arrangement?

I do not want the principles of taxation to be discussed.

But, Sir, the White Paper tells us and the hon. the Minister of Finance himself said in his speech—

The hon. the Minister of Finance said that—

I am discussing this legislation and the reasons given by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has told us that an unsatisfactory method has been adopted in the past. Surely, I am entitled to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education what has been unsatisfactory about it. I want to know this, if we are now going to take at least R17 million from Revenue. I am trying to find it out from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance can answer it. I should rather address my questions to him instead of addressing them to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education. He can tell me what the shortfall was. Can he give us any idea of what is expected to be raised from Bantu taxation this year? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education shakes his head …

It is R11 million.

Would you please leave it to the man who knows something about it, the Deputy Minister of Finance? That hon. Minister is now nodding his head and he says that he can answer the question. I address my questions now through the Chair to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. Can he tell us what has been the shortfall in the past? How do we know that that R17 million is going to cover the shortfall or is not going to be more than the shortfall? Then I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance as well what is the amount which has been paid to the Loan Account normally to finance Bantu education? Perhaps he could give us that information. We will have a better idea then as to what is basically required in future. There was an article written by the Secretary of Bantu Education and he said that that account was expecting something from the sales tax. Is the Department of Finance intending to give or to allot something from sales tax as Bantu taxation towards the Bantu Education Account?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member started in a very exemplary manner here to-night, but I do resent most strongly the mean way in which he is now trying to make political capital here. He has been trying to create the impression that I do not know what is going on in this Vote. I very strongly resent this conduct on his part, and if he wants to look for trouble with me, he is going to get it. I have tried to furnish the hon. member with the facts in a decent manner. He has definitely not come back to the facts in any way. The facts of the matter are that this is an interim measure, and that it makes provision until the year 1972. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance can reply to it further in a moment, but it is being done because we do not know at this stage what the position will be in respect of the P.A.Y.E. system and in respect of Bantu taxation. We do not know what the revenue from those sources will be, and we do not know what the revenue from purchase tax will be. Does the hon. member understand it now?

I have already said it.

The interim measure in regard to this matter was introduced between my Department and the Department of Finance because we do not know what the position will be. One can make an estimate, but we do not know what the amounts will be.

What is your estimate?

However, we do not know what the precise amounts will be. Now I want to tell the hon. member how this account was made up. I was doing that when that hon. member interrupted me. For that specific reason I could not finish doing so. For that reason I told him that he was 50 per cent correct, just as the U.P. members always are, but I shall now furnish him with the facts so that he may know why I am saying that he is 50 per cent correct.

Furnish the facts.

I am blaming the hon. member for this type of thing. There is an amount of R13 million from the Revenue Account in terms of section 20 of the Exchequer and Audit Act. Does the hon. member understand it now?

I said so.

Then there is an amount of R1½ million for higher education, also from the Revenue Account, and that is in terms of section 20 of the same Act. Does the hon. member understand it now?

I said that, too.

Then the hon. member is getting clever now. After all, the hon. member wanted to be funny to me; now I am doing the same.

Order!

Then there is another R1 million of miscellaneous revenue. This comes from examination fees, from class fees, and so forth. Then there is R11 million from Bantu taxation for that purpose. In addition there is the amount of R1,182,000, which is the balance which stood over from last year’s Estimates. As far as I know, the Department of Bantu Education is the only Department which allows the balance on the Estimates to revert to the Estimates for the new year.

This is too complicated for him.

Yes, it is R1,182,000. I think the hon. member has already forgotten again the figures that were given to him. I shall have to read out the whole lot once again. In any case, if the hon. member adds together the figures which I have furnished now, he will see that the total is R45,182,000. If he adds the amounts appearing on the Estimates, he will see that an amount of R45,182,000 is reflected there. This is the whole picture. However, for the sake of completeness, there is something else which I must add. Hon. members will see in the Estimates that an amount of R17 million is being drawn from the Revenue Account and being paid over to the Bantu Education Loan Account as an ad hoc allocation. But, as I am afraid of being accused of not giving the whole picture, I want to furnish all the facts. Hon. members will see that an amount of R500,000 appears on the Additional Estimates. Therefore, this gives us R17 million, plus the R50,000—in other words, R17.5 million. That amount of R500,000 which is also being transferred now from the Revenue Account to the Bantu Education Account as an ad hoc allocation, is the estimate of what it will cost to finance the salary increases which were announced, i.e. from 1st January to 31st March, 1971.

This is absolutely the full picture in regard to the Bantu Education Account, as regards every cent which is being spent. I want to repeat that this is definitely an interim measure, and no more, which is being taken because of the P.A.Y.E. system, in respect of which we are not sure what the revenue is going to be, as well as because of the purchase tax, in respect of which we are not sure what the position is going to be either.

Mr. Chairman, we are thankful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the explanations which he has given us to justify this clause. But what worries me, is that the clause before us, clause 3, is a blank cheque clause. The object of the clause is to transfer “the requisite amount”, whatever it might be. The hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that he is carrying forward a credit of R1 million plus from last year.

R1,182,000.

Yes. Now he is carrying that amount forward to this year. But is that a surplus, having taken into account loan advances in previous years? What was the loan advance last year? Why I ask this question, is that the explanatory memorandum before us does not indicate that this is a new item for the year 1970-’71. The explanatory memorandum says that the financing of the Bantu Education Account has for some time been unsatisfactory. “Some time” is not the current 12 months. It reads further:

The question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is, where be mentioned the “requisite amount”, is this an amount without taking into account the capital advances on Loan Account over previous years? He had indicated the figure of R1,182,000, which is a surplus. But that is a surplus which partially arises from previous Loan Account appropriations. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this because he has emphasized on several occasions that this is an interim measure, presumably for this year only. Interim measures very soon become habits, and then established practice. This appears to have happened with the financing of accounts out of Loan Account in previous years. We are now asked, in terms of this clause, to authorize the payment of any deficiency existing in the Bantu Education Account from the period 31st March, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, by means of a transfer of “the requisite amount” from the Revenue Account to the Bantu Education Account. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, when he says that this is an “interim measure”, it is the first instalment of requests which will come to us to wipe off Loan Account appropriations which have been built up in previous years. He himself has used the expression “interim measure”. Are there other requests which will come before this House for the transfer of amounts from Revenue Account to the Bantu Education Account, to clear off previous Loan Account Appropriations which are now being carried in the Bantu Education Account? As has been stated by the hon. member for Transkei, we on this side have no quarrel with the idea of increasing the amount available in the Bantu Education Account. What we must know, however, is how much has been put through in this way in the past. Is this “requisite amount” going to cover those past advances, and what is the anticipated figure for “requisite amounts” in years ahead that we might be asked to vote? Only when we have such information, can we weigh up and decide whether we should give what is in fact a blank cheque to the Minister. I would appreciate it if the Deputy Minister of Finance or the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration could explain the position to us. There is no need to hide anything. What is the accumulated Loan Account? We are going to begin to pay it off this year. We are going to square off the account. If some new system is to be produced in future, let us have the whole picture. Let there not be anything hidden as to what is involved here.

Mr. Chairman. I have gained the impression that hon. members of the Opposition have not been able to resist the temptation of trying to steal a political march on the Government. The picture is not quite as it was presented here. It is not true that a change in policy has taken place with the Government. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education clarified the position. Furthermore, it is apparent from the explanatory memorandum that an arrangement is being made here which is to be valid until 31st March, 1972. in order that the position may be clarified as regards the pattern for the future. Further to questions put by members of the Opposition, I want to say that the present position is that the total indebtedness amounted to R33.6 million on 31st March, 1970. The total is not R60 million, as was observed by one hon. member. Furthermore, there is an estimated deficiency of R17,967 million for this particular year. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration referred to the amount of R11 million, which represents taxes collected from the Bantu. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is not here at the moment, but I want to say that this paints quite a different picture from the one he described in respect of the time of the late Mr. Hofmeyr. It is now being asked that the amount in respect of this year will not be debited again, but that it will be advanced, together with the amount for next year. This is what is being envisaged through this clause, as I interpret it. This also becomes apparent from the explanatory memorandum.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

An endeavour was made to make the contents of this Bill available to hon. members at as early a date as possible, and copies of the draft Bill and explanations were made available to certain hon. members on both sides of this House prior to the First Reading.

In addition to the usual section with regard to the coming into operation of certain provisions which appear in the Schedule to the Bill, the text of the Bill consists mainly of less important amendments. However, there are a few clauses to which I want to draw the attention of hon. members. The Republic is at present changing over to a system of metric weights and measures, and the Schedules to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, which are based mainly on imperial weights and measures must consequently be adapted as well. The Department of Customs and Excise, in co-operation with other bodies, inter alia the Board of Trade and Industries has made a great deal of progress with regard to the provisional adaptation of the ordinary customs duties in Part I of Schedule No. I to the said Act. It is hoped that next year this part of Schedule No. I will be published in a Government Gazette for general information to the extent to which it is possible to do so prior to the inclusion of that part in the Act. As regard the adaptation of the excise duties, just as in the case of import duties, the position is that it is not possible in practice to convert the present duties into exactly the same duties on the basis of metric quantities, and the duties must necessarily be increased or reduced slightly without affecting the income to any real extent. However, excise duties can be increased or reduced only by means of taxation proposals, which are introduced in the House of Assembly by the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that it is not possible for all the industries which manufacture excisable goods, to change over to the metric system on the same date, the rates of excise duties which must be amended as a result of the change-over to the metric system, cannot be put into operation by means of taxation proposals. For these reasons, provision is now being made in terms of which the Minister of Finance may amend the Schedules to the Customs and Excise Act by notice in the Government Gazette in order to introduce duties which are based on the metric system of weights and measures. It will then also be possible to convert the excise duties as and when the industries concerned change over to the metric system themselves.

Last year a provision was also included in the Customs and Excise Amendment Act in terms of which the Minister could give retrospective effect, if he deemed such action justified, to certain amendments regarding sales duty which he had effected by notice. In a few cases the introduction of the sales duty gave rise to less serious anomalies which could not have been foreseen and which could then be rectified with retrospective effect. In view of the fact that this provision automatically ceased to be of effect with the introduction of the 1970-’71 Appropriation Bill, and in view of the fact that new goods have been made subject to sales duty this year, it was decided to include an identical provision in this year’s Bill.

The Schedules, which comprise the largest part of the Bill, also contain, in addition to the taxation proposals in connection with the customs and excise duty on aviation kerosene and the amended and new sales duty, amendments to the Schedules to the principal Act which have been effected since 30th January, 1969, by notice in the Government Gazette and which are now being sanctioned in terms of the provisions of that Act.

This is a Bill which can be dealt with better in the Committee Stage than in the Second Reading, but the Bill follows a pattern in that it gives effect to the Budget proposals and amendments to the tariffs necessary as the result of our membership of G.A.T.T. and also as the result of the recommendations of the Board of Trade. The Bill in effect covers three main headings, the Budget proposals, the amendments required under the G.A.T.T. agreement and also the Board of Trade recommendations. There are also two matters mentioned by the Minister that meet with our approval. Firstly there is clause 2, which gives legal effect to the procedure already being followed of the “Red” way or the “Green” way in regard to the clearing of customs at terminal points. It will accelerate the customs examination and in view of the introduction of large aircraft carrying 450 passengers, this will speed up the clearing of traffic at the terminals in Johannesburg and Cape Town: and secondly, clause 7, which provides relief from prosecution of an agent whose principals have committed an offence. In the past both the agents and the principals could be prosecuted for doing something about which the agent had no knowledge. The principals overseas could make a false declaration or draw up a false invoice and there were prosecutions where the agent was prosecuted. We drew the attention of the Minister to that in 1968 and pointed out how unfair that was. It is pleasant now to see that at last our advice has been taken, although it is two years later.

But there are also a great number of items which appear in the Bill which do not have our approval. These are items which are alleged to be luxuries and on which the sales tax is imposed. We have said from time to time that we are not opposed to a sales tax on luxuries, but we are opposed to a sales tax on items which we regard as necessities required in the ordinary household. Far too many so-called luxuries have been taxed in the past, items such as cosmetics, toilet preparations, gloves, automatic vending machines, radios, etc. These all received attention from the Minister in his Schedule, and we will deal with these items in detail when we come to discuss the Schedules of the Bill. But in the meantime it is as well to mention that when we complained in the past and the Minister turned down our complaints, it is interesting to find that after a year the Government has heeded our advice and has had a change of heart. For example, in the Schedules attached to this Bill it is indicated that the tax on washing preparations which were regarded as luxuries last year have been reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent and on polishing powders from 5 per cent to nil. The tax on disinfectants and insecticides has been reduced from 10 per cent to nil. The hon. member for Durban (Point) drew the attention of the Government to that last session and pointed out that disinfectants were not a luxury but a necessity and it has taken the Government a year to appreciate the wisdom of our advice. The duty on travel goods has been reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent, on picture frames from 10 per cent to nil and on toilet paper from 20 per cent to 5 per cent. There is still another 5 per cent to go. It is still in the semi-luxury class. The duty on postcards has been reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent and on bed linen from 5 per cent to nil. Most of these reductions are reductions which were recommended by us last year, and it is interesting to find that the Government now takes heed of our advice. On the other hand, there are various items in the Schedules on which the duty has been increased and we will discuss those later. For that reason I hope that the Minister will not ask for the Committee Stage to be taken to-night. We have certain amendments to put on the Order Paper in connection with a lengthy list of items which will require our attention in the Committee Stage and suggest that it would be in the interest of the House to give the Minister and hon. members an opportunity of studying those amendments. They will be printed on the Order Paper to-night, and there will be ample time to-morrow, while we are waiting for the Other Place, to discuss these matters in detail and to try to persuade the Minister to have a change of heart and to accept our advice this year which he ignored last year. Apart from that, Sir, we support the Second Reading of the Bill.